Pandas Profiling Report

Dataset statistics

Number of variables	52
Number of observations	2541
Missing cells	62878
Missing cells (%)	47.6%
Duplicate rows	0
Duplicate rows (%)	0.0%
Total size in memory	7.7 MiB
Average record size in memory	3.1 KiB

Variable types

Numeric	17
Unsupported	6
Categorical	11
URL	8
Text	9
Boolean	1

Alerts

`is_answered` has constant value "True"	Constant
`migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color` has constant value "#0077CC"	Constant
`migrated_from__other_site__site_state` has constant value "normal"	Constant
`migrated_from__other_site__site_type` has constant value "main_site"	Constant
`_dlt_list_idx` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date`	High correlation
`_dlt_parent_id` is highly overall correlated with `accepted_answer_id` and 7 other fields	High correlation
`accepted_answer_id` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 6 other fields	High correlation
`answer_count` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date`	High correlation
`closed_date` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 6 other fields	High correlation
`community_owned_date` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_list_idx` and 14 other fields	High correlation
`content_license` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date` and 2 other fields	High correlation
`last_activity_date` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 9 other fields	High correlation
`last_edit_date` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 12 other fields	High correlation
`migrated_from__on_date` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 12 other fields	High correlation
`migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date` is highly overall correlated with `last_edit_date` and 7 other fields	High correlation
`migrated_from__other_site__launch_date` is highly overall correlated with `last_edit_date` and 7 other fields	High correlation
`migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date` is highly overall correlated with `last_edit_date` and 7 other fields	High correlation
`migrated_from__question_id` is highly overall correlated with `last_edit_date` and 1 other fields	High correlation
`owner__accept_rate` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date`	High correlation
`owner__account_id` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date` and 7 other fields	High correlation
`owner__reputation` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date` and 4 other fields	High correlation
`owner__user_id` is highly overall correlated with `accepted_answer_id` and 10 other fields	High correlation
`owner__user_type` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date` and 2 other fields	High correlation
`protected_date` is highly overall correlated with `content_license` and 1 other fields	High correlation
`question_creation_date` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 9 other fields	High correlation
`question_id` is highly overall correlated with `_dlt_parent_id` and 9 other fields	High correlation
`question_score` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date` and 1 other fields	High correlation
`view_count` is highly overall correlated with `community_owned_date` and 3 other fields	High correlation
`owner__user_type` is highly imbalanced (57.9%)	Imbalance
`content_license` is highly imbalanced (82.2%)	Imbalance
`owner__account_id` has 219 (8.6%) missing values	Missing
`owner__reputation` has 219 (8.6%) missing values	Missing
`owner__user_id` has 219 (8.6%) missing values	Missing
`owner__profile_image` has 219 (8.6%) missing values	Missing
`owner__link` has 219 (8.6%) missing values	Missing
`last_edit_date` has 1044 (41.1%) missing values	Missing
`content_license` has 494 (19.4%) missing values	Missing
`closed_date` has 2053 (80.8%) missing values	Missing
`closed_reason` has 2053 (80.8%) missing values	Missing
`owner__accept_rate` has 1526 (60.1%) missing values	Missing
`accepted_answer_id` has 1384 (54.5%) missing values	Missing
`locked_date` has 2541 (100.0%) missing values	Missing
`protected_date` has 2520 (99.2%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__launch_date` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__site_state` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__icon_url` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__audience` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__site_url` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__logo_url` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__name` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__other_site__site_type` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__on_date` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`migrated_from__question_id` has 2535 (99.8%) missing values	Missing
`community_owned_date` has 2538 (99.9%) missing values	Missing
`community_owned_date` is uniformly distributed	Uniform
`question_id` has unique values	Unique
`last_activity_date` has unique values	Unique
`question_creation_date` has unique values	Unique
`link` has unique values	Unique
`title` has unique values	Unique
`question` has unique values	Unique
`_dlt_id` has unique values	Unique
`answers` is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis	Unsupported
`answer_creation_date` is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis	Unsupported
`is_accepted` is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis	Unsupported
`answer_score` is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis	Unsupported
`gpt35_0125_ans` is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis	Unsupported
`locked_date` is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis	Unsupported
`question_score` has 309 (12.2%) zeros	Zeros
`_dlt_list_idx` has 28 (1.1%) zeros	Zeros
`owner__accept_rate` has 82 (3.2%) zeros	Zeros

Reproduction

Analysis started	2024-10-30 14:31:01.575624
Analysis finished	2024-10-30 14:32:27.566558
Duration	1 minute and 25.99 seconds
Software version	ydata-profiling vv4.10.0
Download configuration	config.json

question_id
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	17006.932

Minimum	138
Maximum	32426
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	138
5-th percentile	3799
Q1	8819
median	16193
Q3	24430
95-th percentile	31024
Maximum	32426
Range	32288
Interquartile range (IQR)	15611

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	9063.0751
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.53290475
Kurtosis	-1.2778554
Mean	17006.932
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	7704
Skewness	0.06184422
Sum	43214615
Variance	82139330
Monotonicity	Strictly increasing

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
138	1	< 0.1%
22667	1	< 0.1%
22628	1	< 0.1%
22631	1	< 0.1%
22632	1	< 0.1%
22638	1	< 0.1%
22643	1	< 0.1%
22653	1	< 0.1%
22654	1	< 0.1%
22676	1	< 0.1%
Other values (2531)	2531	99.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
138	1	< 0.1%
177	1	< 0.1%
219	1	< 0.1%
249	1	< 0.1%
294	1	< 0.1%
341	1	< 0.1%
349	1	< 0.1%
374	1	< 0.1%
380	1	< 0.1%
411	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
32426	1	< 0.1%
32366	1	< 0.1%
32358	1	< 0.1%
32353	1	< 0.1%
32327	1	< 0.1%
32315	1	< 0.1%
32292	1	< 0.1%
32282	1	< 0.1%
32278	1	< 0.1%
32254	1	< 0.1%

answers
Unsupported

REJECTED UNSUPPORTED

Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	297.9 KiB

answer_creation_date
Unsupported

REJECTED UNSUPPORTED

Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	297.9 KiB

is_accepted
Unsupported

REJECTED UNSUPPORTED

Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	297.9 KiB

answer_score
Unsupported

REJECTED UNSUPPORTED

Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	297.9 KiB

gpt35_0125_ans
Unsupported

REJECTED UNSUPPORTED

Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	913.3 KiB

owner__account_id
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	1318
Distinct (%)	56.8%
Missing	219
Missing (%)	8.6%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	2982605.3

Minimum	1083
Maximum	7871716
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1083
5-th percentile	96863.8
Q1	961274
median	2611917
Q3	4679414
95-th percentile	6858192
Maximum	7871716
Range	7870633
Interquartile range (IQR)	3718140

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	2196201.7
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.73633669
Kurtosis	-1.0424431
Mean	2982605.3
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	1650643
Skewness	0.39529741
Sum	6.9256096 × 10⁹
Variance	4.8233021 × 10¹²
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
961274	242	9.5%
4926742	39	1.5%
6852473	25	1.0%
4100194	16	0.6%
4023375	16	0.6%
1036486	16	0.6%
2611917	12	0.5%
1804110	11	0.4%
990461	11	0.4%
1843368	10	0.4%
Other values (1308)	1924	75.7%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1083	3	0.1%
1149	2	0.1%
1325	1	< 0.1%
1781	2	0.1%
2515	1	< 0.1%
2728	3	0.1%
4174	1	< 0.1%
7856	1	< 0.1%
8372	1	< 0.1%
8420	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
7871716	1	< 0.1%
7834715	1	< 0.1%
7823153	1	< 0.1%
7800407	1	< 0.1%
7778231	1	< 0.1%
7776769	1	< 0.1%
7767591	1	< 0.1%
7750158	1	< 0.1%
7698296	1	< 0.1%
7682302	1	< 0.1%

owner__reputation
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	381
Distinct (%)	16.4%
Missing	219
Missing (%)	8.6%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	6272.3984

Minimum	1
Maximum	48153
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1
5-th percentile	11
Q1	113
median	228
Q3	1068.25
95-th percentile	48153
Maximum	48153
Range	48152
Interquartile range (IQR)	955.25

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	14969.947
Coefficient of variation (CV)	2.3866385
Kurtosis	3.558324
Mean	6272.3984
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	193
Skewness	2.3150192
Sum	14564509
Variance	2.2409933 × 10⁸
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
48153	242	9.5%
11	46	1.8%
21	46	1.8%
27732	39	1.5%
1	35	1.4%
31	32	1.3%
123	27	1.1%
133	27	1.1%
163	26	1.0%
111	26	1.0%
Other values (371)	1776	69.9%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1	35	1.4%
3	13	0.5%
5	3	0.1%
7	3	0.1%
9	18	0.7%
11	46	1.8%
13	13	0.5%
15	4	0.2%
17	4	0.2%
19	17	0.7%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
48153	242	9.5%
43677	1	< 0.1%
38182	1	< 0.1%
36748	5	0.2%
28970	1	< 0.1%
27732	39	1.5%
18371	3	0.1%
13690	25	1.0%
11792	1	< 0.1%
10262	2	0.1%

owner__user_id
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	1318
Distinct (%)	56.8%
Missing	219
Missing (%)	8.6%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	7728.3019

Minimum	21
Maximum	19468
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	21
5-th percentile	933
Q1	2608
median	5885.5
Q3	13785
95-th percentile	17857.7
Maximum	19468
Range	19447
Interquartile range (IQR)	11177

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	5860.1835
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.7582757
Kurtosis	-1.1500188
Mean	7728.3019
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	4569.5
Skewness	0.47574447
Sum	17945117
Variance	34341751
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
933	242	9.5%
13808	39	1.5%
16789	25	1.0%
5686	16	0.6%
5620	16	0.6%
1127	16	0.6%
3676	12	0.5%
2334	11	0.4%
8078	11	0.4%
2531	10	0.4%
Other values (1308)	1924	75.7%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
21	1	< 0.1%
34	1	< 0.1%
46	1	< 0.1%
65	1	< 0.1%
72	1	< 0.1%
73	3	0.1%
77	1	< 0.1%
81	7	0.3%
84	1	< 0.1%
85	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
19468	1	< 0.1%
19442	1	< 0.1%
19438	1	< 0.1%
19432	1	< 0.1%
19416	1	< 0.1%
19408	1	< 0.1%
19393	1	< 0.1%
19373	1	< 0.1%
19357	1	< 0.1%
19354	1	< 0.1%

owner__user_type
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION IMBALANCE

Distinct	4
Distinct (%)	0.2%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	167.6 KiB

registered	2111
does_not_exist	219
unregistered	204
moderator	7

Length

Max length	14
Median length	10
Mean length	10.502558
Min length	9

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	26687
Distinct characters	14
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	0 ?
Unique (%)	0.0%

Sample

1st row	moderator
2nd row	registered
3rd row	registered
4th row	registered
5th row	registered

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
registered	2111	83.1%
does_not_exist	219	8.6%
unregistered	204	8.0%
moderator	7	0.3%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
registered	2111	83.1%
does_not_exist	219	8.6%
unregistered	204	8.0%
moderator	7	0.3%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	7390	27.7%
r	4644	17.4%
t	2760	10.3%
s	2753	10.3%
d	2541	9.5%
i	2534	9.5%
g	2315	8.7%
o	452	1.7%
_	438	1.6%
n	423	1.6%
Other values (4)	437	1.6%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	26687	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	7390	27.7%
r	4644	17.4%
t	2760	10.3%
s	2753	10.3%
d	2541	9.5%
i	2534	9.5%
g	2315	8.7%
o	452	1.7%
_	438	1.6%
n	423	1.6%
Other values (4)	437	1.6%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	26687	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	7390	27.7%
r	4644	17.4%
t	2760	10.3%
s	2753	10.3%
d	2541	9.5%
i	2534	9.5%
g	2315	8.7%
o	452	1.7%
_	438	1.6%
n	423	1.6%
Other values (4)	437	1.6%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	26687	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	7390	27.7%
r	4644	17.4%
t	2760	10.3%
s	2753	10.3%
d	2541	9.5%
i	2534	9.5%
g	2315	8.7%
o	452	1.7%
_	438	1.6%
n	423	1.6%
Other values (4)	437	1.6%

owner__profile_image
URL

MISSING

Distinct	1242
Distinct (%)	53.5%
Missing	219
Missing (%)	8.6%
Memory size	305.9 KiB

https://i.sstatic.net/sw7YK.jpg?s=256	242
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9a247bd4f286597aa21bc436373810e8?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	48
https://i.sstatic.net/zJjzE.jpg?s=256	39
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/66ce1a2c624a552fb4cc62aefc615822?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	35
https://i.sstatic.net/fd2fZ.jpg?s=256	25
Other values (1237)	1933
(Missing)	219

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://i.sstatic.net/sw7YK.jpg?s=256	242	9.5%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9a247bd4f286597aa21bc436373810e8?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	48	1.9%
https://i.sstatic.net/zJjzE.jpg?s=256	39	1.5%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/66ce1a2c624a552fb4cc62aefc615822?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	35	1.4%
https://i.sstatic.net/fd2fZ.jpg?s=256	25	1.0%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3a1b7d00d51625c7fa72089ed77e801e?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	19	0.7%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6bdb68f7d3ecf581a55a2ed4e6aeaafc?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	16	0.6%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/e857290c77388a243f93cead9ec41438?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	16	0.6%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/33943aadafe6e0420eb64b62ee55997a?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	16	0.6%
https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/2f0de415b2a26bd3ffcb87dd52d41a0a?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	12	0.5%
Other values (1232)	1854	73.0%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	2322	91.4%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
www.gravatar.com	1474	58.0%
i.sstatic.net	754	29.7%
graph.facebook.com	53	2.1%
lh3.googleusercontent.com	14	0.6%
lh5.googleusercontent.com	11	0.4%
lh6.googleusercontent.com	10	0.4%
lh4.googleusercontent.com	6	0.2%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/sw7YK.jpg	242	9.5%
/avatar/9a247bd4f286597aa21bc436373810e8	48	1.9%
/zJjzE.jpg	39	1.5%
/avatar/66ce1a2c624a552fb4cc62aefc615822	35	1.4%
/fd2fZ.jpg	25	1.0%
/avatar/3a1b7d00d51625c7fa72089ed77e801e	19	0.7%
/avatar/6bdb68f7d3ecf581a55a2ed4e6aeaafc	16	0.6%
/avatar/33943aadafe6e0420eb64b62ee55997a	16	0.6%
/avatar/e857290c77388a243f93cead9ec41438	16	0.6%
/avatar/2f0de415b2a26bd3ffcb87dd52d41a0a	12	0.5%
Other values (1232)	1854	73.0%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	867	34.1%
s=256	754	29.7%
s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	607	23.9%
type=large	53	2.1%
sz=256	41	1.6%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	2322	91.4%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

owner__display_name
Text

Distinct	1333
Distinct (%)	52.5%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	165.5 KiB

Length

Max length	32
Median length	24
Mean length	9.4879969
Min length	3

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	24109
Distinct characters	92
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	1007 ?
Unique (%)	39.6%

Sample

1st row	Joseph Weissman
2nd row	slashmais
3rd row	Tom Morris
4th row	Edward Black
5th row	Dan Brumleve

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
mozibur	242	6.8%
ullah	242	6.8%
user6917	79	2.2%
user8572	70	2.0%
alexander	64	1.8%
king	42	1.2%
s	41	1.2%
nelson	25	0.7%
george	23	0.6%
michael	17	0.5%
Other values (1585)	2700	76.2%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	2052	8.5%
a	1719	7.1%
r	1677	7.0%
i	1317	5.5%
l	1232	5.1%
s	1205	5.0%
o	1202	5.0%
n	1136	4.7%
u	1092	4.5%
	1009	4.2%
Other values (82)	10468	43.4%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	24109	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	2052	8.5%
a	1719	7.1%
r	1677	7.0%
i	1317	5.5%
l	1232	5.1%
s	1205	5.0%
o	1202	5.0%
n	1136	4.7%
u	1092	4.5%
	1009	4.2%
Other values (82)	10468	43.4%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	24109	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	2052	8.5%
a	1719	7.1%
r	1677	7.0%
i	1317	5.5%
l	1232	5.1%
s	1205	5.0%
o	1202	5.0%
n	1136	4.7%
u	1092	4.5%
	1009	4.2%
Other values (82)	10468	43.4%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	24109	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
e	2052	8.5%
a	1719	7.1%
r	1677	7.0%
i	1317	5.5%
l	1232	5.1%
s	1205	5.0%
o	1202	5.0%
n	1136	4.7%
u	1092	4.5%
	1009	4.2%
Other values (82)	10468	43.4%

owner__link
URL

MISSING

Distinct	1318
Distinct (%)	56.8%
Missing	219
Missing (%)	8.6%
Memory size	267.3 KiB

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/mozibur-ullah	242
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/alexander-s-king	39
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/16789/nelson-alexander	25
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5686/user132181	16
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5620/user128932	16
Other values (1313)	1984
(Missing)	219

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/mozibur-ullah	242	9.5%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13808/alexander-s-king	39	1.5%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/16789/nelson-alexander	25	1.0%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5686/user132181	16	0.6%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/5620/user128932	16	0.6%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/1127/draks	16	0.6%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/3676/hal	12	0.5%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/2334/lukas	11	0.4%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8078/user107952	11	0.4%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/2531/drux	10	0.4%
Other values (1308)	1924	75.7%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	2322	91.4%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
philosophy.stackexchange.com	2322	91.4%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/users/933/mozibur-ullah	242	9.5%
/users/13808/alexander-s-king	39	1.5%
/users/16789/nelson-alexander	25	1.0%
/users/1127/draks	16	0.6%
/users/5686/user132181	16	0.6%
/users/5620/user128932	16	0.6%
/users/3676/hal	12	0.5%
/users/2334/lukas	11	0.4%
/users/8078/user107952	11	0.4%
/users/4872/lalessandro	10	0.4%
Other values (1308)	1924	75.7%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	2322	91.4%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	2322	91.4%
(Missing)	219	8.6%

is_answered
Boolean

CONSTANT

Distinct	1
Distinct (%)	< 0.1%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	2.6 KiB

True	2541

Common Values (Table)
Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
True	2541	100.0%

view_count
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION

Distinct	1274
Distinct (%)	50.1%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1145.3495

Minimum	25
Maximum	92926
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	25
5-th percentile	87
Q1	184
median	363
Q3	966
95-th percentile	4328
Maximum	92926
Range	92901
Interquartile range (IQR)	782

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	3245.8138
Coefficient of variation (CV)	2.8339069
Kurtosis	293.89595
Mean	1145.3495
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	234
Skewness	13.46486
Sum	2910333
Variance	10535307
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
136	13	0.5%
179	12	0.5%
137	11	0.4%
141	10	0.4%
161	10	0.4%
102	10	0.4%
217	9	0.4%
248	9	0.4%
106	9	0.4%
209	9	0.4%
Other values (1264)	2439	96.0%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
25	1	< 0.1%
32	1	< 0.1%
36	2	0.1%
38	1	< 0.1%
39	2	0.1%
42	2	0.1%
43	1	< 0.1%
46	1	< 0.1%
48	1	< 0.1%
49	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
92926	1	< 0.1%
45322	1	< 0.1%
44612	1	< 0.1%
33313	1	< 0.1%
30478	1	< 0.1%
29531	1	< 0.1%
29011	1	< 0.1%
26436	1	< 0.1%
25622	1	< 0.1%
22309	1	< 0.1%

answer_count
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION

Distinct	13
Distinct (%)	0.5%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	2.3187721

Minimum	1
Maximum	15
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1
5-th percentile	1
Q1	1
median	2
Q3	3
95-th percentile	5
Maximum	15
Range	14
Interquartile range (IQR)	2

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	1.6023844
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.69104865
Kurtosis	5.914006
Mean	2.3187721
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	1
Skewness	1.9833751
Sum	5892
Variance	2.5676357
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=13)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1	973	38.3%
2	709	27.9%
3	428	16.8%
4	211	8.3%
5	98	3.9%
6	50	2.0%
7	38	1.5%
8	14	0.6%
10	8	0.3%
9	6	0.2%
Other values (3)	6	0.2%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1	973	38.3%
2	709	27.9%
3	428	16.8%
4	211	8.3%
5	98	3.9%
6	50	2.0%
7	38	1.5%
8	14	0.6%
9	6	0.2%
10	8	0.3%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
15	1	< 0.1%
12	1	< 0.1%
11	4	0.2%
10	8	0.3%
9	6	0.2%
8	14	0.6%
7	38	1.5%
6	50	2.0%
5	98	3.9%
4	211	8.3%

question_score
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION ZEROS

Distinct	33
Distinct (%)	1.3%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	2.7961433

Minimum	-5
Maximum	34
Zeros	309
Zeros (%)	12.2%
Negative	154
Negative (%)	6.1%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	-5
5-th percentile	-1
Q1	1
median	2
Q3	4
95-th percentile	8
Maximum	34
Range	39
Interquartile range (IQR)	3

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	3.2897121
Coefficient of variation (CV)	1.1765177
Kurtosis	13.224762
Mean	2.7961433
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	1
Skewness	2.5697918
Sum	7105
Variance	10.822206
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=33)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1	494	19.4%
2	453	17.8%
3	365	14.4%
0	309	12.2%
4	268	10.5%
5	172	6.8%
6	100	3.9%
-1	86	3.4%
7	58	2.3%
8	43	1.7%
Other values (23)	193	7.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
-5	1	< 0.1%
-4	5	0.2%
-3	32	1.3%
-2	30	1.2%
-1	86	3.4%
0	309	12.2%
1	494	19.4%
2	453	17.8%
3	365	14.4%
4	268	10.5%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
34	1	< 0.1%
29	1	< 0.1%
28	1	< 0.1%
27	2	0.1%
24	1	< 0.1%
23	2	0.1%
22	2	0.1%
21	1	< 0.1%
19	3	0.1%
18	4	0.2%

last_activity_date
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1.4178458 × 10⁹

Minimum	1.3517182 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.456458 × 10⁹
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1.3517182 × 10⁹
5-th percentile	1.3623653 × 10⁹
Q1	1.3980927 × 10⁹
median	1.4229198 × 10⁹
Q3	1.4434736 × 10⁹
95-th percentile	1.4538594 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.456458 × 10⁹
Range	1.0473979 × 10⁸
Interquartile range (IQR)	45380971

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	28776215
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.020295729
Kurtosis	-0.73674442
Mean	1.4178458 × 10⁹
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	22413545
Skewness	-0.55238399
Sum	3.6027462 × 10¹²
Variance	8.2807054 × 10¹⁴
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1369382427	1	< 0.1%
1428105002	1	< 0.1%
1449096419	1	< 0.1%
1427647465	1	< 0.1%
1427754812	1	< 0.1%
1427858153	1	< 0.1%
1433862263	1	< 0.1%
1431108450	1	< 0.1%
1428023758	1	< 0.1%
1428022500	1	< 0.1%
Other values (2531)	2531	99.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1351718246	1	< 0.1%
1352158249	1	< 0.1%
1352335268	1	< 0.1%
1352341568	1	< 0.1%
1352480054	1	< 0.1%
1352568080	1	< 0.1%
1352646105	1	< 0.1%
1352724108	1	< 0.1%
1352730090	1	< 0.1%
1352872851	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1456458037	1	< 0.1%
1456434318	1	< 0.1%
1456412849	1	< 0.1%
1456357645	1	< 0.1%
1456341522	1	< 0.1%
1456301229	1	< 0.1%
1456290655	1	< 0.1%
1456274967	1	< 0.1%
1456269507	1	< 0.1%
1456258584	1	< 0.1%

question_creation_date
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1.4072409 × 10⁹

Minimum	1.3074943 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.456429 × 10⁹
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1.3074943 × 10⁹
5-th percentile	1.3486626 × 10⁹
Q1	1.3856145 × 10⁹
median	1.4118286 × 10⁹
Q3	1.4341309 × 10⁹
95-th percentile	1.4514116 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.456429 × 10⁹
Range	1.4893464 × 10⁸
Interquartile range (IQR)	48516455

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	33612769
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.023885583
Kurtosis	-0.26698819
Mean	1.4072409 × 10⁹
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	24420186
Skewness	-0.62524016
Sum	3.5757992 × 10¹²
Variance	1.1298183 × 10¹⁵
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1307494334	1	< 0.1%
1427827693	1	< 0.1%
1427638856	1	< 0.1%
1427640899	1	< 0.1%
1427642396	1	< 0.1%
1427655453	1	< 0.1%
1427667615	1	< 0.1%
1427759492	1	< 0.1%
1427766706	1	< 0.1%
1427877451	1	< 0.1%
Other values (2531)	2531	99.6%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1307494334	1	< 0.1%
1307520310	1	< 0.1%
1307573085	1	< 0.1%
1307647496	1	< 0.1%
1307768603	1	< 0.1%
1307967980	1	< 0.1%
1307991790	1	< 0.1%
1308098363	1	< 0.1%
1308168311	1	< 0.1%
1308226503	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1456428976	1	< 0.1%
1456279095	1	< 0.1%
1456262068	1	< 0.1%
1456256514	1	< 0.1%
1456195173	1	< 0.1%
1456156704	1	< 0.1%
1456077953	1	< 0.1%
1456059556	1	< 0.1%
1456019656	1	< 0.1%
1455914358	1	< 0.1%

last_edit_date
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	1338
Distinct (%)	89.4%
Missing	1044
Missing (%)	41.1%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1.4274535 × 10⁹

Minimum	1.3074952 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.5923829 × 10⁹
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1.3074952 × 10⁹
5-th percentile	1.3553588 × 10⁹
Q1	1.3967865 × 10⁹
median	1.429473 × 10⁹
Q3	1.4513412 × 10⁹
95-th percentile	1.4920873 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.5923829 × 10⁹
Range	2.8488772 × 10⁸
Interquartile range (IQR)	54554712

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	51038352
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.035754827
Kurtosis	2.3615278
Mean	1.4274535 × 10⁹
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	23927276
Skewness	0.97257614
Sum	2.1368979 × 10¹²
Variance	2.6049134 × 10¹⁵
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1492087339	70	2.8%
1592382894	59	2.3%
1492087338	23	0.9%
1492085961	5	0.2%
1492088120	4	0.2%
1492087213	2	0.1%
1492088052	2	0.1%
1489679313	2	0.1%
1428682988	1	< 0.1%
1429322775	1	< 0.1%
Other values (1328)	1328	52.3%
(Missing)	1044	41.1%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1307495178	1	< 0.1%
1307521335	1	< 0.1%
1307708401	1	< 0.1%
1308015364	1	< 0.1%
1308216765	1	< 0.1%
1309029329	1	< 0.1%
1310685092	1	< 0.1%
1313724942	1	< 0.1%
1314289532	1	< 0.1%
1314555754	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1592382894	59	2.3%
1492088203	1	< 0.1%
1492088120	4	0.2%
1492088052	2	0.1%
1492087955	1	< 0.1%
1492087898	1	< 0.1%
1492087877	1	< 0.1%
1492087695	1	< 0.1%
1492087673	1	< 0.1%
1492087606	1	< 0.1%

content_license
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION IMBALANCE MISSING

Distinct	2
Distinct (%)	0.1%
Missing	494
Missing (%)	19.4%
Memory size	165.1 KiB

CC BY-SA 3.0	1992
CC BY-SA 4.0	55

Length

Max length	12
Median length	12
Mean length	12
Min length	12

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	24564
Distinct characters	11
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	0 ?
Unique (%)	0.0%

Sample

1st row	CC BY-SA 3.0
2nd row	CC BY-SA 3.0
3rd row	CC BY-SA 3.0
4th row	CC BY-SA 3.0
5th row	CC BY-SA 3.0

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
CC BY-SA 3.0	1992	78.4%
CC BY-SA 4.0	55	2.2%
(Missing)	494	19.4%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
cc	2047	33.3%
by-sa	2047	33.3%
3.0	1992	32.4%
4.0	55	0.9%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
C	4094	16.7%
	4094	16.7%
B	2047	8.3%
Y	2047	8.3%
-	2047	8.3%
S	2047	8.3%
A	2047	8.3%
.	2047	8.3%
0	2047	8.3%
3	1992	8.1%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	24564	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
C	4094	16.7%
	4094	16.7%
B	2047	8.3%
Y	2047	8.3%
-	2047	8.3%
S	2047	8.3%
A	2047	8.3%
.	2047	8.3%
0	2047	8.3%
3	1992	8.1%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	24564	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
C	4094	16.7%
	4094	16.7%
B	2047	8.3%
Y	2047	8.3%
-	2047	8.3%
S	2047	8.3%
A	2047	8.3%
.	2047	8.3%
0	2047	8.3%
3	1992	8.1%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	24564	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
C	4094	16.7%
	4094	16.7%
B	2047	8.3%
Y	2047	8.3%
-	2047	8.3%
S	2047	8.3%
A	2047	8.3%
.	2047	8.3%
0	2047	8.3%
3	1992	8.1%

link
URL

UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	405.0 KiB

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining	1
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22667/what-makes-our-senses-qualitatively-different-from-each-other	1
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22628/please-recommend-a-good-philosophical-book-on-entropy	1
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/should-uniform-motion-be-distinguished-from-rest	1
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22632/was-the-reappraisal-of-time-space-and-motion-by-einstein-in-kantian-terms-a-t	1
Other values (2536)	2536

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22667/what-makes-our-senses-qualitatively-different-from-each-other	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22628/please-recommend-a-good-philosophical-book-on-entropy	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22631/should-uniform-motion-be-distinguished-from-rest	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22632/was-the-reappraisal-of-time-space-and-motion-by-einstein-in-kantian-terms-a-t	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22638/are-humes-relations-of-ideas-the-same-as-analytic-a-priori-judgments	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22643/sigmund-freud-related-work-to-writer-self-empowerment-by-autobiography	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22653/why-is-nietzsche-considered-a-philosopher-but-not-whitman	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22654/will-philosophy-ever-have-a-consensus-on-all-the-issues	1	< 0.1%
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22676/sleep-and-death	1	< 0.1%
Other values (2531)	2531	99.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	2541	100.0%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
philosophy.stackexchange.com	2541	100.0%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22667/what-makes-our-senses-qualitatively-different-from-each-other	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22628/please-recommend-a-good-philosophical-book-on-entropy	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22631/should-uniform-motion-be-distinguished-from-rest	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22632/was-the-reappraisal-of-time-space-and-motion-by-einstein-in-kantian-terms-a-t	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22638/are-humes-relations-of-ideas-the-same-as-analytic-a-priori-judgments	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22643/sigmund-freud-related-work-to-writer-self-empowerment-by-autobiography	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22653/why-is-nietzsche-considered-a-philosopher-but-not-whitman	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22654/will-philosophy-ever-have-a-consensus-on-all-the-issues	1	< 0.1%
/questions/22676/sleep-and-death	1	< 0.1%
Other values (2531)	2531	99.6%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	2541	100.0%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	2541	100.0%

title
Text

UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	298.7 KiB

Length

Max length	165
Median length	117
Mean length	60.423062
Min length	15

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	153535
Distinct characters	124
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	2541 ?
Unique (%)	100.0%

Sample

1st row	Are the unexamined lives of others worth examining?
2nd row	Does the Scientific Method of research apply to philosophy?
3rd row	Do Kierkegaard's non-pseudonymous writings enable one to understand Kierkegaard's philosophy much?
4th row	How has the philosophy of war changed since Sun Tzu's The Art of War?
5th row	Is there any possible world in which 2+2=5?

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
the	1087	4.6%
of	941	4.0%
is	853	3.6%
a	655	2.8%
to	535	2.3%
what	483	2.1%
and	450	1.9%
in	386	1.6%
are	290	1.2%
does	279	1.2%
Other values (4871)	17544	74.6%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	20962	13.7%
e	13787	9.0%
t	11179	7.3%
o	10525	6.9%
i	10316	6.7%
a	9403	6.1%
n	8665	5.6%
s	8491	5.5%
r	6391	4.2%
h	5333	3.5%
Other values (114)	48483	31.6%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	153535	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	20962	13.7%
e	13787	9.0%
t	11179	7.3%
o	10525	6.9%
i	10316	6.7%
a	9403	6.1%
n	8665	5.6%
s	8491	5.5%
r	6391	4.2%
h	5333	3.5%
Other values (114)	48483	31.6%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	153535	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	20962	13.7%
e	13787	9.0%
t	11179	7.3%
o	10525	6.9%
i	10316	6.7%
a	9403	6.1%
n	8665	5.6%
s	8491	5.5%
r	6391	4.2%
h	5333	3.5%
Other values (114)	48483	31.6%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	153535	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	20962	13.7%
e	13787	9.0%
t	11179	7.3%
o	10525	6.9%
i	10316	6.7%
a	9403	6.1%
n	8665	5.6%
s	8491	5.5%
r	6391	4.2%
h	5333	3.5%
Other values (114)	48483	31.6%

question
Text

UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	2.3 MiB

Length

Max length	2319
Median length	1066
Mean length	687.2314
Min length	44

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	1746255
Distinct characters	217
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	2541 ?
Unique (%)	100.0%

Sample

1st row	<p>Socrates continually admonished his interlocutors to become more introspective, arguing passionately for self-examination:</p> <blockquote> <p>The unexamined life is not worth living.</p> </blockquote> <p>But an examined life is painful, and necessitates an involvement with real problems. This is why it's worth living -- the unreflective are easily trapped into a living death of the mind by mythology, as the reflective sometimes are by ideology. In both cares we are deadened, sleepwalking through our lives blind and deaf, incapable of interacting with the world as it actually is much less imagining the world as it should be.</p> <p>Now, we know of course that Socrates did not refrain from commenting on the generally unreflective character of his fellow Athenians. This is really the heart of my question. Certain reactionary critics might suggest that it's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values, but why should you go about examining the beliefs and values of others?</p>
2nd row	<p>The Scientific Method is essentially the effort to discover causation in perceived correlations of collected data. In other words it hunts for 'recipes' that can be applied to consistently achieve a desired result, and as such does not inquire into <em>why</em> something happens, but rather into <em>what</em> makes it happen. Philosophy on the other hand is more concerned with the <em>why</em>: what effect does this have on the trustworthiness of the Scientific Method as an philosophical tool?</p>
3rd row	<p>As I read them, Kierkegaard's writings can be split into two groups: the mostly philosophical psuedonymous, and more theological non-pseudonymous works.</p> <p>I have read primarily the pseudonymous works (<em>Either-Or</em>, <em>Concluding Unscientific Postscript</em>, <em>Fear and Trembling</em>) and a few other bits and pieces (including <em>The Book on Adler</em> and the <em>Two Ages</em> review).</p> <p>So I'm wondering, do the non-pseudonymous works (the "discourses" and so on) add much to the understanding of the pseudonymous/philosophical works to justify spending time reading them?</p>
4th row	<p><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_war" rel="nofollow">The Art of War</a></em>, an ancient military treatise written by Sun Tzu, is composed of thirteen chapters detailing strategies for war ranging from simply laying plans to the extensive use of fire and spies against one's enemies. For centuries, it has been regarded as the definite reading for military strategists, enthusiasts, and warriors of all nature.</p> <p>It's readings have been taken and adapted to seemingly unrelated fields, such as business, and has influenced great leaders and military men such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon" rel="nofollow">Napoleon Bonaparte</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur" rel="nofollow">General Douglas MacArthur</a>.</p> <p>My question is this: Since being written in ancient China, there have been many important advances in the technology of war, such as the invention of gunpowder, as well as many important militaristic events that may have influenced the world's views on war, such as the Mongol invasion and World War II. <strong>Because of these things, are there any more recent treatises or developments on the philosophy of war that military enthusiasts and strategists should consider?</strong></p>
5th row	<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems" rel="noreferrer">Gödel's incompleteness theorems</a> show that arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete, and that arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency. It is useful to believe that arithmetic is consistent, and therefore also incomplete, but <a href="http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath347/kmath347.htm" rel="noreferrer">there are other points of view</a>. </p> <p>It seems to me that both views are compatible with the consistency of first-order logic itself. Thus, I am wondering: What is the autopsy of the efforts to revisit logic in the wake of Gödel? Is there any possible world in which 2+2=5, even if the shortest proof of it is gigabytes long, and individually we have no time to verify it without use of a computer? How do contemporary philosophers interpret Gödel as applied to this specific issue?</p>

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
the	11830	4.4%
of	7921	3.0%
a	7279	2.7%
to	6719	2.5%
is	6624	2.5%
that	5198	2.0%
and	5099	1.9%
in	4392	1.6%
i	3120	1.2%
it	2986	1.1%
Other values (25072)	205029	77.0%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	259546	14.9%
e	155073	8.9%
t	122800	7.0%
o	104136	6.0%
i	101316	5.8%
a	97641	5.6%
n	90592	5.2%
s	90290	5.2%
r	70538	4.0%
h	62427	3.6%
Other values (207)	591896	33.9%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	1746255	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	259546	14.9%
e	155073	8.9%
t	122800	7.0%
o	104136	6.0%
i	101316	5.8%
a	97641	5.6%
n	90592	5.2%
s	90290	5.2%
r	70538	4.0%
h	62427	3.6%
Other values (207)	591896	33.9%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	1746255	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	259546	14.9%
e	155073	8.9%
t	122800	7.0%
o	104136	6.0%
i	101316	5.8%
a	97641	5.6%
n	90592	5.2%
s	90290	5.2%
r	70538	4.0%
h	62427	3.6%
Other values (207)	591896	33.9%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	1746255	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	259546	14.9%
e	155073	8.9%
t	122800	7.0%
o	104136	6.0%
i	101316	5.8%
a	97641	5.6%
n	90592	5.2%
s	90290	5.2%
r	70538	4.0%
h	62427	3.6%
Other values (207)	591896	33.9%

_dlt_parent_id
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION

Distinct	34
Distinct (%)	1.3%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	176.3 KiB

QkWy8ugEKgm1gw	87
+E/N7KAOOrVU9A	85
V9RjXY6i9PsPNQ	85
+B0oXog/SlVcTQ	82
u0r6mrnSVwl2pA	81
Other values (29)	2121

Length

Max length	14
Median length	14
Mean length	14
Min length	14

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	35574
Distinct characters	64
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	0 ?
Unique (%)	0.0%

Sample

1st row	hqFlxMH/7Pednw
2nd row	u0r6mrnSVwl2pA
3rd row	/o7AnFeX3QJGXA
4th row	U+yLPbRs6dG2qw
5th row	u0r6mrnSVwl2pA

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
QkWy8ugEKgm1gw	87	3.4%
+E/N7KAOOrVU9A	85	3.3%
V9RjXY6i9PsPNQ	85	3.3%
+B0oXog/SlVcTQ	82	3.2%
u0r6mrnSVwl2pA	81	3.2%
NDt4hDv6XRlZUg	81	3.2%
YrO3yoUhJmHOuQ	80	3.1%
gV4HqJSvpH2FJA	80	3.1%
izE26NhsJ2ic9g	80	3.1%
UVagB2un2sPENw	79	3.1%
Other values (24)	1721	67.7%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
qkwy8ugekgm1gw	87	3.4%
v9rjxy6i9pspnq	85	3.3%
e/n7kaoorvu9a	85	3.3%
b0oxog/slvctq	82	3.2%
u0r6mrnsvwl2pa	81	3.2%
ndt4hdv6xrlzug	81	3.2%
yro3youhjmhouq	80	3.1%
gv4hqjsvph2fja	80	3.1%
ize26nhsj2ic9g	80	3.1%
uvagb2un2spenw	79	3.1%
Other values (24)	1721	67.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
g	1420	4.0%
A	1415	4.0%
w	1414	4.0%
Q	1054	3.0%
E	901	2.5%
2	886	2.5%
m	825	2.3%
V	813	2.3%
X	803	2.3%
O	785	2.2%
Other values (54)	25258	71.0%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	35574	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
g	1420	4.0%
A	1415	4.0%
w	1414	4.0%
Q	1054	3.0%
E	901	2.5%
2	886	2.5%
m	825	2.3%
V	813	2.3%
X	803	2.3%
O	785	2.2%
Other values (54)	25258	71.0%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	35574	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
g	1420	4.0%
A	1415	4.0%
w	1414	4.0%
Q	1054	3.0%
E	901	2.5%
2	886	2.5%
m	825	2.3%
V	813	2.3%
X	803	2.3%
O	785	2.2%
Other values (54)	25258	71.0%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	35574	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
g	1420	4.0%
A	1415	4.0%
w	1414	4.0%
Q	1054	3.0%
E	901	2.5%
2	886	2.5%
m	825	2.3%
V	813	2.3%
X	803	2.3%
O	785	2.2%
Other values (54)	25258	71.0%

_dlt_list_idx
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION ZEROS

Distinct	100
Distinct (%)	3.9%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	49.178276

Minimum	0
Maximum	99
Zeros	28
Zeros (%)	1.1%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	0
5-th percentile	4
Q1	24
median	49
Q3	74
95-th percentile	94
Maximum	99
Range	99
Interquartile range (IQR)	50

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	28.936451
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.58839905
Kurtosis	-1.2073428
Mean	49.178276
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	25
Skewness	0.0031005507
Sum	124962
Variance	837.31821
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
16	31	1.2%
82	30	1.2%
73	30	1.2%
14	29	1.1%
80	29	1.1%
12	29	1.1%
39	29	1.1%
1	29	1.1%
74	29	1.1%
38	29	1.1%
Other values (90)	2247	88.4%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	28	1.1%
1	29	1.1%
2	27	1.1%
3	22	0.9%
4	27	1.1%
5	25	1.0%
6	28	1.1%
7	27	1.1%
8	25	1.0%
9	25	1.0%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
99	26	1.0%
98	21	0.8%
97	20	0.8%
96	24	0.9%
95	26	1.0%
94	29	1.1%
93	26	1.0%
92	25	1.0%
91	28	1.1%
90	20	0.8%

_dlt_id
Text

UNIQUE

Distinct	2541
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	0
Missing (%)	0.0%
Memory size	176.3 KiB

Length

Max length	14
Median length	14
Mean length	14
Min length	14

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	35574
Distinct characters	64
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	2541 ?
Unique (%)	100.0%

Sample

1st row	xfed9AXti2/CBQ
2nd row	0DkNC5dWxFR9FQ
3rd row	5YBTXlV02suc8A
4th row	UqbgYVdxfPey4Q
5th row	KrUQkYgISnanig

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
xfed9axti2/cbq	1	< 0.1%
xbq4sa6h/1/nhq	1	< 0.1%
xio/ss2cscdhpq	1	< 0.1%
5ybtxlv02suc8a	1	< 0.1%
uqbgyvdxfpey4q	1	< 0.1%
kruqkygisnanig	1	< 0.1%
brzq1lpz+vmtdg	1	< 0.1%
j8kzs2exqkwdjg	1	< 0.1%
hpeo2dooinqncw	1	< 0.1%
yy1te+adlcngpq	1	< 0.1%
Other values (2531)	2531	99.6%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
Q	1154	3.2%
A	1154	3.2%
g	1138	3.2%
w	1122	3.2%
s	563	1.6%
M	559	1.6%
E	553	1.6%
e	550	1.5%
5	550	1.5%
C	545	1.5%
Other values (54)	27686	77.8%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	35574	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
Q	1154	3.2%
A	1154	3.2%
g	1138	3.2%
w	1122	3.2%
s	563	1.6%
M	559	1.6%
E	553	1.6%
e	550	1.5%
5	550	1.5%
C	545	1.5%
Other values (54)	27686	77.8%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	35574	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
Q	1154	3.2%
A	1154	3.2%
g	1138	3.2%
w	1122	3.2%
s	563	1.6%
M	559	1.6%
E	553	1.6%
e	550	1.5%
5	550	1.5%
C	545	1.5%
Other values (54)	27686	77.8%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	35574	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
Q	1154	3.2%
A	1154	3.2%
g	1138	3.2%
w	1122	3.2%
s	563	1.6%
M	559	1.6%
E	553	1.6%
e	550	1.5%
5	550	1.5%
C	545	1.5%
Other values (54)	27686	77.8%

closed_date
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	488
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	2053
Missing (%)	80.8%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1.4236963 × 10⁹

Minimum	1.3248783 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.5918857 × 10⁹
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1.3248783 × 10⁹
5-th percentile	1.3621527 × 10⁹
Q1	1.4059175 × 10⁹
median	1.4292146 × 10⁹
Q3	1.4509963 × 10⁹
95-th percentile	1.4545523 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.5918857 × 10⁹
Range	2.670074 × 10⁸
Interquartile range (IQR)	45078770

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	30165936
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.021188462
Kurtosis	1.6233952
Mean	1.4236963 × 10⁹
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	22024352
Skewness	-0.47605249
Sum	6.9476381 × 10¹¹
Variance	9.0998369 × 10¹⁴
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1433136282	1	< 0.1%
1432891551	1	< 0.1%
1432349711	1	< 0.1%
1452356478	1	< 0.1%
1432060437	1	< 0.1%
1432045724	1	< 0.1%
1432407869	1	< 0.1%
1431741962	1	< 0.1%
1431443747	1	< 0.1%
1431433725	1	< 0.1%
Other values (478)	478	18.8%
(Missing)	2053	80.8%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1324878327	1	< 0.1%
1338580910	1	< 0.1%
1348195005	1	< 0.1%
1352164840	1	< 0.1%
1352660770	1	< 0.1%
1352998417	1	< 0.1%
1354127311	1	< 0.1%
1354127709	1	< 0.1%
1354241821	1	< 0.1%
1354242145	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1591885730	1	< 0.1%
1470625454	1	< 0.1%
1457829774	1	< 0.1%
1457125239	1	< 0.1%
1457125170	1	< 0.1%
1457125155	1	< 0.1%
1457125147	1	< 0.1%
1457125140	1	< 0.1%
1455841118	1	< 0.1%
1455841108	1	< 0.1%

closed_reason
Categorical

MISSING

Distinct	10
Distinct (%)	2.0%
Missing	2053
Missing (%)	80.8%
Memory size	149.2 KiB

Not suitable for this site	147
Needs details or clarity	141
Opinion-based	64
Needs more focus	53
Duplicate	38
Other values (5)	45

Length

Max length	26
Median length	24
Mean length	20.280738
Min length	9

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	9897
Distinct characters	27
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	1 ?
Unique (%)	0.2%

Sample

1st row	not constructive
2nd row	Not suitable for this site
3rd row	not a real question
4th row	not constructive
5th row	not constructive

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
Not suitable for this site	147	5.8%
Needs details or clarity	141	5.5%
Opinion-based	64	2.5%
Needs more focus	53	2.1%
Duplicate	38	1.5%
not constructive	22	0.9%
off topic	9	0.4%
not a real question	7	0.3%
exact duplicate	6	0.2%
too localized	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2053	80.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
needs	194	11.7%
not	176	10.6%
suitable	147	8.8%
for	147	8.8%
this	147	8.8%
site	147	8.8%
details	141	8.5%
or	141	8.5%
clarity	141	8.5%
opinion-based	64	3.8%
Other values (12)	219	13.2%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	1176	11.9%
e	1027	10.4%
t	1010	10.2%
i	934	9.4%
s	922	9.3%
o	684	6.9%
a	558	5.6%
r	511	5.2%
l	482	4.9%
d	406	4.1%
Other values (17)	2187	22.1%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	9897	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	1176	11.9%
e	1027	10.4%
t	1010	10.2%
i	934	9.4%
s	922	9.3%
o	684	6.9%
a	558	5.6%
r	511	5.2%
l	482	4.9%
d	406	4.1%
Other values (17)	2187	22.1%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	9897	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	1176	11.9%
e	1027	10.4%
t	1010	10.2%
i	934	9.4%
s	922	9.3%
o	684	6.9%
a	558	5.6%
r	511	5.2%
l	482	4.9%
d	406	4.1%
Other values (17)	2187	22.1%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	9897	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	1176	11.9%
e	1027	10.4%
t	1010	10.2%
i	934	9.4%
s	922	9.3%
o	684	6.9%
a	558	5.6%
r	511	5.2%
l	482	4.9%
d	406	4.1%
Other values (17)	2187	22.1%

owner__accept_rate
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING ZEROS

Distinct	52
Distinct (%)	5.1%
Missing	1526
Missing (%)	60.1%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	47.597044

Minimum	0
Maximum	100
Zeros	82
Zeros (%)	3.2%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	0
5-th percentile	0
Q1	39
median	44
Q3	64
95-th percentile	100
Maximum	100
Range	100
Interquartile range (IQR)	25

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	25.89099
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.54396215
Kurtosis	-0.32902287
Mean	47.597044
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	16
Skewness	0.11785503
Sum	48311
Variance	670.34338
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
44	257	10.1%
0	82	3.2%
100	60	2.4%
39	50	2.0%
50	46	1.8%
25	39	1.5%
82	28	1.1%
60	25	1.0%
15	25	1.0%
83	23	0.9%
Other values (42)	380	15.0%
(Missing)	1526	60.1%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	82	3.2%
4	1	< 0.1%
5	5	0.2%
6	3	0.1%
9	7	0.3%
11	6	0.2%
12	4	0.2%
14	5	0.2%
15	25	1.0%
17	9	0.4%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
100	60	2.4%
94	7	0.3%
91	7	0.3%
86	9	0.4%
83	23	0.9%
82	28	1.1%
80	19	0.7%
78	11	0.4%
75	21	0.8%
73	16	0.6%

accepted_answer_id
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	1157
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	1384
Missing (%)	54.5%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	17046.389

Minimum	182
Maximum	32451
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	182
5-th percentile	3459.6
Q1	8710
median	16444
Q3	24677
95-th percentile	31020.2
Maximum	32451
Range	32269
Interquartile range (IQR)	15967

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	9234.716
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.54174031
Kurtosis	-1.3122756
Mean	17046.389
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	7988
Skewness	0.026020171
Sum	19722672
Variance	85279979
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1538	1	< 0.1%
22622	1	< 0.1%
22910	1	< 0.1%
22765	1	< 0.1%
22804	1	< 0.1%
22745	1	< 0.1%
22736	1	< 0.1%
23691	1	< 0.1%
22645	1	< 0.1%
22601	1	< 0.1%
Other values (1147)	1147	45.1%
(Missing)	1384	54.5%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
182	1	< 0.1%
265	1	< 0.1%
351	1	< 0.1%
377	1	< 0.1%
405	1	< 0.1%
430	1	< 0.1%
477	1	< 0.1%
626	1	< 0.1%
742	1	< 0.1%
751	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
32451	1	< 0.1%
32368	1	< 0.1%
32328	1	< 0.1%
32324	1	< 0.1%
32299	1	< 0.1%
32255	1	< 0.1%
32246	1	< 0.1%
32235	1	< 0.1%
32205	1	< 0.1%
32184	1	< 0.1%

locked_date
Unsupported

MISSING REJECTED UNSUPPORTED

Missing	2541
Missing (%)	100.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

protected_date
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	21
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	2520
Missing (%)	99.2%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1.4317181 × 10⁹

Minimum	1.3264742 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.4538539 × 10⁹
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1.3264742 × 10⁹
5-th percentile	1.3936922 × 10⁹
Q1	1.4295839 × 10⁹
median	1.4437299 × 10⁹
Q3	1.4492322 × 10⁹
95-th percentile	1.453451 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.4538539 × 10⁹
Range	1.2737966 × 10⁸
Interquartile range (IQR)	19648329

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	29399116
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.020534151
Kurtosis	7.9354435
Mean	1.4317181 × 10⁹
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	7997174
Skewness	-2.57398
Sum	3.006608 × 10¹⁰
Variance	8.6430804 × 10¹⁴
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=21)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1326474239	1	< 0.1%
1449846201	1	< 0.1%
1449232207	1	< 0.1%
1445812549	1	< 0.1%
1443729893	1	< 0.1%
1441615528	1	< 0.1%
1438374097	1	< 0.1%
1431458903	1	< 0.1%
1449126834	1	< 0.1%
1453853902	1	< 0.1%
Other values (11)	11	0.4%
(Missing)	2520	99.2%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1326474239	1	< 0.1%
1393692167	1	< 0.1%
1407436371	1	< 0.1%
1409987906	1	< 0.1%
1418941309	1	< 0.1%
1429583878	1	< 0.1%
1430061025	1	< 0.1%
1431458903	1	< 0.1%
1438374097	1	< 0.1%
1441615528	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1453853902	1	< 0.1%
1453450989	1	< 0.1%
1451727067	1	< 0.1%
1451159256	1	< 0.1%
1449846201	1	< 0.1%
1449232207	1	< 0.1%
1449126834	1	< 0.1%
1445812549	1	< 0.1%
1445795837	1	< 0.1%
1444720202	1	< 0.1%

migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color
Text

MISSING

Distinct	3
Distinct (%)	50.0%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	79.7 KiB

Length

Max length	7
Median length	5.5
Mean length	5.5
Min length	4

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	33
Distinct characters	8
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	1 ?
Unique (%)	16.7%

Sample

1st row	#FFF
2nd row	#F4ECE3
3rd row	#EBF5F5
4th row	#FFF
5th row	#EBF5F5

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
fff	3	50.0%
ebf5f5	2	33.3%
f4ece3	1	16.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
F	14	42.4%
#	6	18.2%
E	4	12.1%
5	4	12.1%
B	2	6.1%
4	1	3.0%
C	1	3.0%
3	1	3.0%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	33	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
F	14	42.4%
#	6	18.2%
E	4	12.1%
5	4	12.1%
B	2	6.1%
4	1	3.0%
C	1	3.0%
3	1	3.0%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	33	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
F	14	42.4%
#	6	18.2%
E	4	12.1%
5	4	12.1%
B	2	6.1%
4	1	3.0%
C	1	3.0%
3	1	3.0%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	33	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
F	14	42.4%
#	6	18.2%
E	4	12.1%
5	4	12.1%
B	2	6.1%
4	1	3.0%
C	1	3.0%
3	1	3.0%

migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color
Text

MISSING

Distinct	3
Distinct (%)	50.0%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	79.7 KiB

Length

Max length	7
Median length	5.5
Mean length	5.5
Min length	4

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	33
Distinct characters	7
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	1 ?
Unique (%)	16.7%

Sample

1st row	#000
2nd row	#5E5E5E
3rd row	#5A8788
4th row	#000
5th row	#5A8788

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
000	3	50.0%
5a8788	2	33.3%
5e5e5e	1	16.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	9	27.3%
#	6	18.2%
8	6	18.2%
5	5	15.2%
E	3	9.1%
A	2	6.1%
7	2	6.1%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	33	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	9	27.3%
#	6	18.2%
8	6	18.2%
5	5	15.2%
E	3	9.1%
A	2	6.1%
7	2	6.1%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	33	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	9	27.3%
#	6	18.2%
8	6	18.2%
5	5	15.2%
E	3	9.1%
A	2	6.1%
7	2	6.1%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	33	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	9	27.3%
#	6	18.2%
8	6	18.2%
5	5	15.2%
E	3	9.1%
A	2	6.1%
7	2	6.1%

migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color
Categorical

CONSTANT MISSING

Distinct	1
Distinct (%)	16.7%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	139.1 KiB

#0077CC	6

Length

Max length	7
Median length	7
Mean length	7
Min length	7

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	42
Distinct characters	4
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	0 ?
Unique (%)	0.0%

Sample

1st row	#0077CC
2nd row	#0077CC
3rd row	#0077CC
4th row	#0077CC
5th row	#0077CC

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
#0077CC	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0077cc	6	100.0%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	12	28.6%
7	12	28.6%
C	12	28.6%
#	6	14.3%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	42	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	12	28.6%
7	12	28.6%
C	12	28.6%
#	6	14.3%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	42	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	12	28.6%
7	12	28.6%
C	12	28.6%
#	6	14.3%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	42	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	12	28.6%
7	12	28.6%
C	12	28.6%
#	6	14.3%

migrated_from__other_site__launch_date
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	139.2 KiB

1298586551.0	2
1639665691.0	1
1290463924.0	1
1332366021.0	1
1564693434.0	1

Length

Max length	12
Median length	12
Mean length	12
Min length	12

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	72
Distinct characters	10
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	4 ?
Unique (%)	66.7%

Sample

1st row	1639665691.0
2nd row	1290463924.0
3rd row	1298586551.0
4th row	1332366021.0
5th row	1298586551.0

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1298586551.0	2	0.1%
1639665691.0	1	< 0.1%
1290463924.0	1	< 0.1%
1332366021.0	1	< 0.1%
1564693434.0	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1298586551.0	2	33.3%
1639665691.0	1	16.7%
1290463924.0	1	16.7%
1332366021.0	1	16.7%
1564693434.0	1	16.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
6	11	15.3%
1	10	13.9%
5	8	11.1%
0	8	11.1%
9	7	9.7%
3	7	9.7%
2	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
4	5	6.9%
8	4	5.6%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
6	11	15.3%
1	10	13.9%
5	8	11.1%
0	8	11.1%
9	7	9.7%
3	7	9.7%
2	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
4	5	6.9%
8	4	5.6%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
6	11	15.3%
1	10	13.9%
5	8	11.1%
0	8	11.1%
9	7	9.7%
3	7	9.7%
2	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
4	5	6.9%
8	4	5.6%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
6	11	15.3%
1	10	13.9%
5	8	11.1%
0	8	11.1%
9	7	9.7%
3	7	9.7%
2	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
4	5	6.9%
8	4	5.6%

migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	139.2 KiB

1289329200.0	2
1417457805.0	1
1281639600.0	1
1299178800.0	1
1316539203.0	1

Length

Max length	12
Median length	12
Mean length	12
Min length	12

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	72
Distinct characters	11
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	4 ?
Unique (%)	66.7%

Sample

1st row	1417457805.0
2nd row	1281639600.0
3rd row	1289329200.0
4th row	1299178800.0
5th row	1289329200.0

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1289329200.0	2	0.1%
1417457805.0	1	< 0.1%
1281639600.0	1	< 0.1%
1299178800.0	1	< 0.1%
1316539203.0	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1289329200.0	2	33.3%
1417457805.0	1	16.7%
1281639600.0	1	16.7%
1299178800.0	1	16.7%
1316539203.0	1	16.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	16	22.2%
1	10	13.9%
2	9	12.5%
9	8	11.1%
8	6	8.3%
3	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
7	3	4.2%
5	3	4.2%
6	3	4.2%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	16	22.2%
1	10	13.9%
2	9	12.5%
9	8	11.1%
8	6	8.3%
3	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
7	3	4.2%
5	3	4.2%
6	3	4.2%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	16	22.2%
1	10	13.9%
2	9	12.5%
9	8	11.1%
8	6	8.3%
3	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
7	3	4.2%
5	3	4.2%
6	3	4.2%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	16	22.2%
1	10	13.9%
2	9	12.5%
9	8	11.1%
8	6	8.3%
3	6	8.3%
.	6	8.3%
7	3	4.2%
5	3	4.2%
6	3	4.2%

migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	139.2 KiB

1288724400.0	2
1416337200.0	1
1281034800.0	1
1298574000.0	1
1315940400.0	1

Length

Max length	12
Median length	12
Mean length	12
Min length	12

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	72
Distinct characters	11
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	4 ?
Unique (%)	66.7%

Sample

1st row	1416337200.0
2nd row	1281034800.0
3rd row	1288724400.0
4th row	1298574000.0
5th row	1288724400.0

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1288724400.0	2	0.1%
1416337200.0	1	< 0.1%
1281034800.0	1	< 0.1%
1298574000.0	1	< 0.1%
1315940400.0	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1288724400.0	2	33.3%
1416337200.0	1	16.7%
1281034800.0	1	16.7%
1298574000.0	1	16.7%
1315940400.0	1	16.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	21	29.2%
1	9	12.5%
4	9	12.5%
2	7	9.7%
8	7	9.7%
.	6	8.3%
7	4	5.6%
3	4	5.6%
9	2	2.8%
5	2	2.8%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	21	29.2%
1	9	12.5%
4	9	12.5%
2	7	9.7%
8	7	9.7%
.	6	8.3%
7	4	5.6%
3	4	5.6%
9	2	2.8%
5	2	2.8%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	21	29.2%
1	9	12.5%
4	9	12.5%
2	7	9.7%
8	7	9.7%
.	6	8.3%
7	4	5.6%
3	4	5.6%
9	2	2.8%
5	2	2.8%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	72	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	21	29.2%
1	9	12.5%
4	9	12.5%
2	7	9.7%
8	7	9.7%
.	6	8.3%
7	4	5.6%
3	4	5.6%
9	2	2.8%
5	2	2.8%

migrated_from__other_site__site_state
Categorical

CONSTANT MISSING

Distinct	1
Distinct (%)	16.7%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	139.1 KiB

normal	6

Length

Max length	6
Median length	6
Mean length	6
Min length	6

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	36
Distinct characters	6
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	0 ?
Unique (%)	0.0%

Sample

1st row	normal
2nd row	normal
3rd row	normal
4th row	normal
5th row	normal

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
normal	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
normal	6	100.0%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
n	6	16.7%
o	6	16.7%
r	6	16.7%
m	6	16.7%
a	6	16.7%
l	6	16.7%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	36	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
n	6	16.7%
o	6	16.7%
r	6	16.7%
m	6	16.7%
a	6	16.7%
l	6	16.7%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	36	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
n	6	16.7%
o	6	16.7%
r	6	16.7%
m	6	16.7%
a	6	16.7%
l	6	16.7%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	36	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
n	6	16.7%
o	6	16.7%
r	6	16.7%
m	6	16.7%
a	6	16.7%
l	6	16.7%

migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url
URL

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	80.1 KiB

https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	2
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1
(Missing)	2535

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	2	0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
cdn.sstatic.net	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	2	0.1%
/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon@2.png	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url
URL

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	80.0 KiB

https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/favicon.ico	2
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/favicon.ico	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/favicon.ico	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/favicon.ico	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/favicon.ico	1
(Missing)	2535

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/favicon.ico	2	0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
cdn.sstatic.net	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/Sites/physics/Img/favicon.ico	2	0.1%
/Sites/economics/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/english/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/skeptics/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/linguistics/Img/favicon.ico	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

migrated_from__other_site__icon_url
URL

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	80.0 KiB

https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	2
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1
(Missing)	2535

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	2	0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
cdn.sstatic.net	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/Sites/physics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	2	0.1%
/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/english/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/skeptics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

migrated_from__other_site__audience
Text

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	80.0 KiB

Length

Max length	84
Median length	67
Mean length	57.5
Min length	21

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	345
Distinct characters	24
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	4 ?
Unique (%)	66.7%

Sample

1st row	those who study, teach, research and apply economics and econometrics
2nd row	linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts
3rd row	active researchers, academics and students of physics
4th row	scientific skepticism
5th row	active researchers, academics and students of physics

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
and	7	15.6%
active	2	4.4%
physics	2	4.4%
researchers	2	4.4%
research	2	4.4%
linguists	2	4.4%
of	2	4.4%
students	2	4.4%
academics	2	4.4%
enthusiasts	1	2.2%
Other values (21)	21	46.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	40	11.6%
	39	11.3%
e	32	9.3%
i	28	8.1%
a	24	7.0%
t	24	7.0%
n	22	6.4%
c	21	6.1%
r	16	4.6%
o	15	4.3%
Other values (14)	84	24.3%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	345	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	40	11.6%
	39	11.3%
e	32	9.3%
i	28	8.1%
a	24	7.0%
t	24	7.0%
n	22	6.4%
c	21	6.1%
r	16	4.6%
o	15	4.3%
Other values (14)	84	24.3%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	345	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	40	11.6%
	39	11.3%
e	32	9.3%
i	28	8.1%
a	24	7.0%
t	24	7.0%
n	22	6.4%
c	21	6.1%
r	16	4.6%
o	15	4.3%
Other values (14)	84	24.3%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	345	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	40	11.6%
	39	11.3%
e	32	9.3%
i	28	8.1%
a	24	7.0%
t	24	7.0%
n	22	6.4%
c	21	6.1%
r	16	4.6%
o	15	4.3%
Other values (14)	84	24.3%

migrated_from__other_site__site_url
URL

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	79.9 KiB

https://physics.stackexchange.com	2
https://economics.stackexchange.com	1
https://english.stackexchange.com	1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com	1
https://linguistics.stackexchange.com	1
(Missing)	2535

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://physics.stackexchange.com	2	0.1%
https://economics.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
https://english.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
https://linguistics.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
physics.stackexchange.com	2	0.1%
economics.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
english.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
skeptics.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
linguistics.stackexchange.com	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter
Text

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	79.7 KiB

Length

Max length	11
Median length	10
Mean length	8.1666667
Min length	7

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	49
Distinct characters	15
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	4 ?
Unique (%)	66.7%

Sample

1st row	economics
2nd row	english
3rd row	physics
4th row	skeptics
5th row	physics

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
physics	2	33.3%
economics	1	16.7%
english	1	16.7%
skeptics	1	16.7%
linguistics	1	16.7%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	20.4%
i	8	16.3%
c	6	12.2%
p	3	6.1%
h	3	6.1%
e	3	6.1%
n	3	6.1%
y	2	4.1%
o	2	4.1%
g	2	4.1%
Other values (5)	7	14.3%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	49	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	20.4%
i	8	16.3%
c	6	12.2%
p	3	6.1%
h	3	6.1%
e	3	6.1%
n	3	6.1%
y	2	4.1%
o	2	4.1%
g	2	4.1%
Other values (5)	7	14.3%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	49	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	20.4%
i	8	16.3%
c	6	12.2%
p	3	6.1%
h	3	6.1%
e	3	6.1%
n	3	6.1%
y	2	4.1%
o	2	4.1%
g	2	4.1%
Other values (5)	7	14.3%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	49	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	20.4%
i	8	16.3%
c	6	12.2%
p	3	6.1%
h	3	6.1%
e	3	6.1%
n	3	6.1%
y	2	4.1%
o	2	4.1%
g	2	4.1%
Other values (5)	7	14.3%

migrated_from__other_site__logo_url
URL

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	80.0 KiB

https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/logo.png	2
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/logo.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/logo.png	1
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1
(Missing)	2535

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/physics/Img/logo.png	2	0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/english/Img/logo.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/skeptics/Img/logo.png	1	< 0.1%
https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
https	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
cdn.sstatic.net	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
/Sites/physics/Img/logo.png	2	0.1%
/Sites/economics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/english/Img/logo.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/skeptics/Img/logo.png	1	< 0.1%
/Sites/linguistics/Img/apple-touch-icon.png	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

migrated_from__other_site__name
Text

MISSING

Distinct	5
Distinct (%)	83.3%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	79.7 KiB

Length

Max length	28
Median length	10
Mean length	11.666667
Min length	7

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	70
Distinct characters	24
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	4 ?
Unique (%)	66.7%

Sample

1st row	Economics
2nd row	English Language & Usage
3rd row	Physics
4th row	Skeptics
5th row	Physics

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
physics	2	22.2%
economics	1	11.1%
english	1	11.1%
language	1	11.1%
amp	1	11.1%
usage	1	11.1%
skeptics	1	11.1%
linguistics	1	11.1%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	14.3%
i	8	11.4%
c	6	8.6%
g	5	7.1%
n	4	5.7%
a	4	5.7%
	3	4.3%
h	3	4.3%
e	3	4.3%
p	2	2.9%
Other values (14)	22	31.4%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	70	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	14.3%
i	8	11.4%
c	6	8.6%
g	5	7.1%
n	4	5.7%
a	4	5.7%
	3	4.3%
h	3	4.3%
e	3	4.3%
p	2	2.9%
Other values (14)	22	31.4%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	70	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	14.3%
i	8	11.4%
c	6	8.6%
g	5	7.1%
n	4	5.7%
a	4	5.7%
	3	4.3%
h	3	4.3%
e	3	4.3%
p	2	2.9%
Other values (14)	22	31.4%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	70	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
s	10	14.3%
i	8	11.4%
c	6	8.6%
g	5	7.1%
n	4	5.7%
a	4	5.7%
	3	4.3%
h	3	4.3%
e	3	4.3%
p	2	2.9%
Other values (14)	22	31.4%

migrated_from__other_site__site_type
Categorical

CONSTANT MISSING

Distinct	1
Distinct (%)	16.7%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Memory size	139.1 KiB

main_site	6

Length

Max length	9
Median length	9
Mean length	9
Min length	9

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	54
Distinct characters	8
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	0 ?
Unique (%)	0.0%

Sample

1st row	main_site
2nd row	main_site
3rd row	main_site
4th row	main_site
5th row	main_site

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
main_site	6	0.2%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
main_site	6	100.0%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
i	12	22.2%
m	6	11.1%
a	6	11.1%
n	6	11.1%
_	6	11.1%
s	6	11.1%
t	6	11.1%
e	6	11.1%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	54	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
i	12	22.2%
m	6	11.1%
a	6	11.1%
n	6	11.1%
_	6	11.1%
s	6	11.1%
t	6	11.1%
e	6	11.1%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	54	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
i	12	22.2%
m	6	11.1%
a	6	11.1%
n	6	11.1%
_	6	11.1%
s	6	11.1%
t	6	11.1%
e	6	11.1%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	54	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
i	12	22.2%
m	6	11.1%
a	6	11.1%
n	6	11.1%
_	6	11.1%
s	6	11.1%
t	6	11.1%
e	6	11.1%

migrated_from__on_date
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	6
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	1.3821368 × 10⁹

Minimum	1.3355154 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.4520119 × 10⁹
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	1.3355154 × 10⁹
5-th percentile	1.3406051 × 10⁹
Q1	1.3571211 × 10⁹
median	1.368482 × 10⁹
Q3	1.4033669 × 10⁹
95-th percentile	1.4421227 × 10⁹
Maximum	1.4520119 × 10⁹
Range	1.1649655 × 10⁸
Interquartile range (IQR)	46245751

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	42787970
Coefficient of variation (CV)	0.030957841
Kurtosis	0.034033696
Mean	1.3821368 × 10⁹
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	22787126
Skewness	0.91811001
Sum	8.2928206 × 10⁹
Variance	1.8308104 × 10¹⁵
Monotonicity	Strictly increasing

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=6)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1335515371	1	< 0.1%
1355874348	1	< 0.1%
1360861384	1	< 0.1%
1376102586	1	< 0.1%
1412454949	1	< 0.1%
1452011921	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1335515371	1	< 0.1%
1355874348	1	< 0.1%
1360861384	1	< 0.1%
1376102586	1	< 0.1%
1412454949	1	< 0.1%
1452011921	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1452011921	1	< 0.1%
1412454949	1	< 0.1%
1376102586	1	< 0.1%
1360861384	1	< 0.1%
1355874348	1	< 0.1%
1335515371	1	< 0.1%

migrated_from__question_id
Real number (ℝ)

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING

Distinct	6
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	2535
Missing (%)	99.8%
Infinite	0
Infinite (%)	0.0%
Mean	53410.667

Minimum	416
Maximum	138746
Zeros	0
Zeros (%)	0.0%
Negative	0
Negative (%)	0.0%
Memory size	20.0 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum	416
5-th percentile	4170.25
Q1	15897
median	35604.5
Q3	84475
95-th percentile	127724.5
Maximum	138746
Range	138330
Interquartile range (IQR)	68578

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation	53924.76
Coefficient of variation (CV)	1.0096253
Kurtosis	-0.65428397
Mean	53410.667
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)	27680
Skewness	0.84346559
Sum	320464
Variance	2.9078797 × 10⁹
Monotonicity	Not monotonic

Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=6)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
416	1	< 0.1%
94660	1	< 0.1%
53920	1	< 0.1%
17289	1	< 0.1%
138746	1	< 0.1%
15433	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2535	99.8%

Minimum 10 values
Maximum 10 values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
416	1	< 0.1%
15433	1	< 0.1%
17289	1	< 0.1%
53920	1	< 0.1%
94660	1	< 0.1%
138746	1	< 0.1%

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
138746	1	< 0.1%
94660	1	< 0.1%
53920	1	< 0.1%
17289	1	< 0.1%
15433	1	< 0.1%
416	1	< 0.1%

community_owned_date
Categorical

HIGH CORRELATION MISSING UNIFORM

Distinct	3
Distinct (%)	100.0%
Missing	2538
Missing (%)	99.9%
Memory size	139.1 KiB

1370027048.0	1
1374355406.0	1
1374356051.0	1

Length

Max length	12
Median length	12
Mean length	12
Min length	12

Characters and Unicode

Total characters	36
Distinct characters	10
Distinct categories	1 ?
Distinct scripts	1 ?
Distinct blocks	1 ?

The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.

Unique

Unique	3 ?
Unique (%)	100.0%

Sample

1st row	1370027048.0
2nd row	1374355406.0
3rd row	1374356051.0

Common Values

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1370027048.0	1	< 0.1%
1374355406.0	1	< 0.1%
1374356051.0	1	< 0.1%
(Missing)	2538	99.9%

Length

Histogram of lengths of the category

Common Values (Plot)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
1370027048.0	1	33.3%
1374355406.0	1	33.3%
1374356051.0	1	33.3%

Most occurring characters

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	8	22.2%
3	5	13.9%
1	4	11.1%
7	4	11.1%
4	4	11.1%
5	4	11.1%
.	3	8.3%
6	2	5.6%
2	1	2.8%
8	1	2.8%

Most occurring categories

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	36	100.0%

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	8	22.2%
3	5	13.9%
1	4	11.1%
7	4	11.1%
4	4	11.1%
5	4	11.1%
.	3	8.3%
6	2	5.6%
2	1	2.8%
8	1	2.8%

Most occurring scripts

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	36	100.0%

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	8	22.2%
3	5	13.9%
1	4	11.1%
7	4	11.1%
4	4	11.1%
5	4	11.1%
.	3	8.3%
6	2	5.6%
2	1	2.8%
8	1	2.8%

Most occurring blocks

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
(unknown)	36	100.0%

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Value	Count	Frequency (%)
0	8	22.2%
3	5	13.9%
1	4	11.1%
7	4	11.1%
4	4	11.1%
5	4	11.1%
.	3	8.3%
6	2	5.6%
2	1	2.8%
8	1	2.8%

Auto

Heatmap
Table

	_dlt_list_idx	_dlt_parent_id	accepted_answer_id	answer_count	closed_date	closed_reason	community_owned_date	content_license	last_activity_date	last_edit_date	migrated_from__on_date	migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date	migrated_from__other_site__launch_date	migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date	migrated_from__question_id	owner__accept_rate	owner__account_id	owner__reputation	owner__user_id	owner__user_type	protected_date	question_creation_date	question_id	question_score	view_count
_dlt_list_idx	1.000	0.000	0.022	-0.023	0.005	0.024	1.000	0.041	0.018	-0.005	0.257	0.000	0.000	0.000	-0.314	0.027	0.002	0.030	-0.016	0.013	0.160	0.015	0.015	-0.025	-0.018
_dlt_parent_id	0.000	1.000	0.691	0.080	0.569	0.294	1.000	0.059	0.936	0.589	1.000	0.250	0.250	0.250	0.000	0.182	0.265	0.117	0.448	0.107	0.430	0.604	0.670	0.071	0.034
accepted_answer_id	0.022	0.691	1.000	0.031	0.631	0.299	NaN	0.027	0.741	0.624	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	-0.016	0.498	-0.119	0.712	0.118	0.176	0.980	0.980	-0.214	-0.135
answer_count	-0.023	0.080	0.031	1.000	0.185	0.000	1.000	0.052	0.157	-0.004	-0.086	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.143	-0.029	0.008	0.006	0.034	0.000	-0.384	0.019	0.019	0.230	0.324
closed_date	0.005	0.569	0.631	0.185	1.000	0.384	NaN	0.000	0.716	0.549	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	NaN	0.034	0.296	-0.019	0.536	0.047	0.143	0.694	0.694	0.037	-0.076
closed_reason	0.024	0.294	0.299	0.000	0.384	1.000	NaN	0.000	0.280	0.280	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.099	0.101	0.000	0.181	0.022	0.000	0.289	0.254	0.069	0.119
community_owned_date	1.000	1.000	NaN	1.000	NaN	NaN	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
content_license	0.041	0.059	0.027	0.052	0.000	0.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.998	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.076	0.000	0.073	0.000	0.067	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
last_activity_date	0.018	0.936	0.741	0.157	0.716	0.280	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.703	0.771	0.354	0.354	0.354	-0.371	-0.028	0.376	-0.077	0.542	0.077	0.643	0.744	0.744	0.004	0.019
last_edit_date	-0.005	0.589	0.624	-0.004	0.549	0.280	1.000	0.998	0.703	1.000	0.500	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	-0.032	0.320	-0.056	0.449	0.145	0.110	0.621	0.621	-0.093	-0.088
migrated_from__on_date	0.257	1.000	NaN	-0.086	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.771	0.500	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.200	NaN	1.000	-1.000	1.000	1.000	NaN	1.000	1.000	-0.543	-0.257
migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date	0.000	0.250	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.354	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.250	0.250	0.000	1.000
migrated_from__other_site__launch_date	0.000	0.250	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.354	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.250	0.250	0.000	1.000
migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date	0.000	0.250	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.354	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.250	0.250	0.000	1.000
migrated_from__question_id	-0.314	0.000	NaN	0.143	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	-0.371	1.000	0.200	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	NaN	0.400	-0.400	0.400	0.500	NaN	0.200	0.200	-0.143	-0.429
owner__accept_rate	0.027	0.182	-0.016	-0.029	0.034	0.099	1.000	0.076	-0.028	-0.032	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	NaN	1.000	-0.233	-0.011	-0.123	0.244	-0.211	-0.084	-0.084	-0.035	0.013
owner__account_id	0.002	0.265	0.498	0.008	0.296	0.101	1.000	0.000	0.376	0.320	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.400	-0.233	1.000	-0.368	0.749	0.232	0.113	0.551	0.551	-0.134	-0.072
owner__reputation	0.030	0.117	-0.119	0.006	-0.019	0.000	1.000	0.073	-0.077	-0.056	-1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	-0.400	-0.011	-0.368	1.000	-0.492	0.323	0.182	-0.134	-0.134	0.271	0.061
owner__user_id	-0.016	0.448	0.712	0.034	0.536	0.181	1.000	0.000	0.542	0.449	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.400	-0.123	0.749	-0.492	1.000	0.139	0.162	0.748	0.748	-0.168	-0.076
owner__user_type	0.013	0.107	0.118	0.000	0.047	0.022	1.000	0.067	0.077	0.145	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.500	0.244	0.232	0.323	0.139	1.000	0.070	0.101	0.109	0.115	0.000
protected_date	0.160	0.430	0.176	-0.384	0.143	0.000	0.000	1.000	0.643	0.110	NaN	0.000	0.000	0.000	NaN	-0.211	0.113	0.182	0.162	0.070	1.000	0.357	0.357	-0.275	-0.081
question_creation_date	0.015	0.604	0.980	0.019	0.694	0.289	1.000	0.000	0.744	0.621	1.000	0.250	0.250	0.250	0.200	-0.084	0.551	-0.134	0.748	0.101	0.357	1.000	1.000	-0.206	-0.156
question_id	0.015	0.670	0.980	0.019	0.694	0.254	1.000	0.000	0.744	0.621	1.000	0.250	0.250	0.250	0.200	-0.084	0.551	-0.134	0.748	0.109	0.357	1.000	1.000	-0.206	-0.156
question_score	-0.025	0.071	-0.214	0.230	0.037	0.069	1.000	0.000	0.004	-0.093	-0.543	0.000	0.000	0.000	-0.143	-0.035	-0.134	0.271	-0.168	0.115	-0.275	-0.206	-0.206	1.000	0.373
view_count	-0.018	0.034	-0.135	0.324	-0.076	0.119	1.000	0.000	0.019	-0.088	-0.257	1.000	1.000	1.000	-0.429	0.013	-0.072	0.061	-0.076	0.000	-0.081	-0.156	-0.156	0.373	1.000

Count
Matrix

A simple visualization of nullity by column.

Nullity matrix is a data-dense display which lets you quickly visually pick out patterns in data completion.

First rows
Last rows

	question_id	answers	answer_creation_date	is_accepted	answer_score	gpt35_0125_ans	owner__account_id	owner__reputation	owner__user_id	owner__user_type	owner__profile_image	owner__display_name	owner__link	is_answered	view_count	answer_count	question_score	last_activity_date	question_creation_date	last_edit_date	content_license	link	title	question	_dlt_parent_id	_dlt_list_idx	_dlt_id	closed_date	closed_reason	owner__accept_rate	accepted_answer_id	locked_date	protected_date	migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color	migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color	migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color	migrated_from__other_site__launch_date	migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date	migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date	migrated_from__other_site__site_state	migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url	migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url	migrated_from__other_site__icon_url	migrated_from__other_site__audience	migrated_from__other_site__site_url	migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter	migrated_from__other_site__logo_url	migrated_from__other_site__name	migrated_from__other_site__site_type	migrated_from__on_date	migrated_from__question_id	community_owned_date
0	138	[<p>If you wish to live an examined life and you interact with others who do not, you must of necessity examine their unexamined lives - neglecting to do so represents a deficiency in your own examinations of your life.</p>\n, <p>The somewhat easier target, a little to the deontological left of your question ("why should"-> "why would"), sheds a little light on things. For almost all philosophers believe in something akin to the so called 'golden rule of ethics' (the form most germane here being: "All moral acts remain moral if committed by everyone"), and almost all that practise philosophy do so for some ethical consideration. The syllogism that ends, therefore, in almost all philosophers prescribing philosophy on ethical grounds is a moment's work to complete.</p>\n\n<p>But now, how to skirt the guillotine and leap from is to ought? Perhaps one could avoid such considerations of ought altogether, observing that all people introspect</p>\n\n<p><img src="https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110523.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>\n\n<p>...and it is the work of Socrates & co to help them do what they seek to do already more fruitfully.</p>\n\n<p>This feels a little unsatisfying, though: somewhat straw-mannish to claim there is nothing qualitatively different in the self-examinations of the Athenians and those of Socrates. At the risk of incorrectness, then: Mr. Hume- to the scaffold!</p>\n\n<p>Building on the original dummy question ("Why would..."), I would like to reach for my meta-ethical breeze-block of choice, in R.M. Hare's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescriptivism_%28philosophy%29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">universal prescriptivism</a>, which ascribes the origin of moral injunctions as non-directed imperatives that emerge from a society ("Don't kill!"). In this framework, the morality of prescribing introspection is identical with the morality of introspection itself, which in turn stems (as articulated by the OP) from the imperative that as moral beings we must grapple with reality- something we would fail to do without introspection.</p>\n\n<p>Again, though, (although my use of Hare is based purely on my thinking he happens to be right) I suspect people will think I'm cheating here. So perhaps, to be as general as possible, let's talk the social contracts.</p>\n\n<p>In the end, it is a truism that groups with common goals and common values achieve those goals and actuate those values with greater efficacy than the leading brand. The impulse to spread a cultural more that is beneficial (or at least impossible to get rid of- once you introspect, aside from alcohol or a coathanger up your nostril, there's no going back!), is one that leads to a more cohesive, more productive society, more capable of modelling a universal in-group. </p>\n\n<p>There is selfishness there too, certainly: If I never saw another TV talent show again, I would be a happier man. But, impractical (though possibly correct) calculations of the relative happiness of Socrates and pigs aside, the moral heart that drives evangelism of the examined life is, in one way or other, the picture of humanity as a shared endeavor that only introspective thought can show in its fullness.</p>\n, <p>Socrates' statement is an admonition to others that they should be more introspective, that they should look inside themselves to see what is good or bad, what kind of values one has and whether one meets them.</p>\n<p>But this is all in the context of others judging -him-. This is simply a more indirect way of pointing out hypocrisy.</p>\n<p>(forgive the scripture but...) NIV Matthew 7:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.</p>\n<p>3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>People are judging Socrates and he is just turning the tables back on to them.</p>\n<p>The context of the hypocrisy is that people (in all cultures) are <strong>already examining others</strong> to such a degree that they judge them left and right without bothering to do so to themselves.</p>\n<p>As to more directly address the question, if you are not examining and judging others you won't be able to learn from their mistakes or successes. To deny examining others wold be somewhat unfeeling and distant from reality. The trick is not to be hypocritical or arrogant (which are both lesser failures than outright saying and doing bad things). It is the extent and pettiness of some judgments which earn the admonition that they should look into their own hearts too.</p>\n, <p>Because meaning is found in difference, and you can't really understand yourself without understanding others. A self-understanding that is fundamentally disconnected from the realities of the world outside of the mind will crumble when confronted with the absurdities of life. An understanding of others without the proverbial walking in someone else's shoes means that you do not understand the ways in which others are similar to yourself—and hence, you don't really understand yourself.</p>\n\n<p>The question arises, however, how much can we really <em>know</em> ourselves? And how much can we really <em>know</em> someone else? Even as we take note of the qualitative difference between the kinds of self-knowledge obtained in introspection vs. the kinds of observations we can make about another person's words and actions from the outside, we all have our own <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/#more-53073" rel="nofollow">blind spots</a>. We lie to others and we lie to ourselves. We can't bring ourselves to accept the truth that perhaps we really did make that mistake, or that perhaps our intentions really weren't as pure as we originally hoped for. </p>\n\n<p>There are someways in which we know ourselves better than our friends know us and other ways in which we are known better by our friends. I think this covering of each other's blindsides is essential to a fuller understanding of ourselves, and if as these reactionary critics might argue, "It's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values", then to achieve that end you would need the help of another person to examine your beliefs. Your desire not to be known by another who exposes certain aspects of your character if undeniably true is in some sense an extension of your desire not to be known by yourself.</p>\n, <p>It depends. People are not equal. And people are not unique. So are their lives.</p>\n\n<p>When you examine lives of others - you <strong>must</strong> get something for you out of that examination. And thus - examining (seemingly) great people, or examining unique people, or examining people, that you don't understand - is often very beneficial for you. But there are diminishing returns - the more people you are examining, and the deeper you examine them - the less (new) information you will get from them. </p>\n\n<p>Same with fake lives of celebrities or fiction characters - examining them is like eating food, made from cardboard. </p>\n, <p>This is a great question and I hope I won't be the only person to grapple with it.</p>\n\n<p>There must be a calculation that balances the pain and effort of examining another's life with the cost of not doing so. The argument would seem to be that there is little to no cost associated with leaving others to their unreflective state and substantial cost to examining them. If so, we would be advised to let sleeping dogs lie.</p>\n\n<p>One method to alter the calculation would be to find a benefit that both parties could share which will tip the scales back toward examination. No doubt Socrates would point to the general improvement to the state of Athens as a positive good that might arise from general introspection. If bad habits of thought are routinely subject to the light of reason and analysis, perhaps they will die out. And if Athenians in general are less subject to bad reasoning, they will be able to make wise decisions about their city and fellow citizens.</p>\n\n<p>But I imagine there are deeper reasons to examine the lives of others. In my experience, exploration of how another person thinks gives rise to deeper friendship with that person. How can anyone put a price on friendship? For a good friend would you not make great sacrifices? And though I can't see how to quantify it, I feel like my life is better simply for having a handful of good friends.</p>\n\n<p>I plan to consider this question more in the future—it has great value.</p>\n]	[1369382427, 1333109853, 1319736619, 1319696555, 1319584440, 1307574570]	[False, False, True, False, False, False]	[-1, 4, 6, 4, 1, 3]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Examining the beliefs and values of others is important for several reasons. Firstly, engaging in dialogue with others and understanding different perspectives can broaden our own understanding and help us see things from different angles. This can lead to personal growth and deeper insights into our own beliefs and values.\n\nSecondly, examining the beliefs and values of others can help build empathy and understanding. By engaging with others and trying to understand their perspectives, we can develop a greater sense of compassion and tolerance for different viewpoints.\n\nFurthermore, examining the beliefs and values of others can help foster critical thinking and intellectual humility. By challenging our own beliefs and engaging with differing opinions, we can strengthen our ability to think critically and approach issues with an open mind.\n\nIn summary, examining the beliefs and values of others is not only important for personal growth and understanding, but it is also essential for building empathy, fostering critical thinking, and promoting intellectual humility.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727168392, 'id': 'chatcmpl-AAvge77RsSh0Z2hrWxYQLY3Nq4II4', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 180, 'prompt_tokens': 212, 'total_tokens': 392}}	32433.0	9670.0	81.0	moderator	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/c4752b73a675b7652c1d2d52e5634091?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Joseph Weissman	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/81/joseph-weissman	True	1873	6	22	1369382427	1307494334	1.307495e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-the-unexamined-lives-of-others-worth-examining	Are the unexamined lives of others worth examining?	<p>Socrates continually admonished his interlocutors to become more introspective, arguing passionately for self-examination:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The unexamined life is not worth living.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>But an examined life is painful, and necessitates an involvement with real problems. This is why it's worth living -- the unreflective are easily trapped into a living death of the mind by mythology, as the reflective sometimes are by ideology. In both cares we are deadened, sleepwalking through our lives blind and deaf, incapable of interacting with the world as it actually is much less imagining the world as it should be.</p>\n\n<p>Now, we know of course that Socrates did not refrain from commenting on the generally unreflective character of his fellow Athenians. This is really the heart of my question. Certain reactionary critics might suggest that it's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values, but why should you go about examining the beliefs and values of others?</p>\n	hqFlxMH/7Pednw	97	xfed9AXti2/CBQ	NaN	None	94.0	1538.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
1	177	[<p>I'll try to answer in 2 ways, since you gave your own "Scientific Method in a nutshell" definition:</p>\n\n<p>1 - As you put it, the fact that causation is central to the objective of SM ends up putting Science and Philosophy nearer than what seems to be your vision given the title question, since "causation" and "why" are connected ideas.</p>\n\n<p>Seeing things this way, I'd say that yes: a philosophical explanation about something testable will get the benefits of SM, although maybe it's trickier to rule out concurrent philosophical theories by experimentation.</p>\n\n<p>About the why and how thing, I don't think it's a good way to understand the difference between Philosophy and Science, but assuming it is, I suppose that "how" is more tightly linked with the data. "Why", in its turn, admits different ways of explanation. This would, in fact, mean that the trustworthiness of SM would be weaker when applied to Philosophy.</p>\n\n<p>2 - The wikipedia¹ takes the Oxford English Dictionary definition of SM to be:</p>\n\n<p>"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."</p>\n\n<p>If we give up the How × Why distinction, I'd say again that yes: we can apply SM to Philosophy where all (or at least most) of necessary parts are present. If philosophy rarely applies full SM, it's because the studied subjects are more speculative and difficult to "square" in the SM framework.</p>\n\n<p>About the trustworthiness, I don't see any problem "by definition", although if we don't have all the component parts of the method, we'll not get it to exert its full power.</p>\n\n<p>One should have in mind that this kind of question is always puzzled with the problems of defining what is philosophy. Maybe some of the appealing character of this question comes from the fact that some people who try to define philosophy take as one of the basic characteristics the non-experimental factor, so this opposition (with which I don't agree) emerges.</p>\n\n<p>¹ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method</a></p>\n, <p>It can. The methodologies of <a href="http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/">experimental philosophy</a> do attempt to apply the methodologies of scientific argument (though the philosophy of science does have quite a lot to say as to what constitutes a fact) to questions of <a href="http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jk762/ExperimentalPhilosophy.html">moral philosophy</a>. My <a href="http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/brian-ballsun-stanton/">own research</a> also attempts to discern a philosophy of data through adoption of scientific techniques though it certainly <em>isn't</em> science.</p>\n\n<p><a href="http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jk762/ExperimentalPhilosophy.html">X-Phi</a> is:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Experimental philosophy, called x-phi for short, is a new philosophical movement that supplements the traditional tools of analytic philosophy with the scientific methods of cognitive science. So experimental philosophers actually go out and run systematic experiments aimed at understanding how people ordinarily think about the issues at the foundation of the philosophical discussion.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Elements of science can be incorporated extremely well into philosophy, simply because of the unusual techniques providing somewhat unusual insights.</p>\n\n<p>Research into the nature of scientific research is also philosophy: See <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/">Popper</a>, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/">Latour</a>, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/">Lakatos</a>, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/">Kuhn</a>. </p>\n, <p>I'm not sure I understand what the question is here...</p>\n\n<p>Essentially, yes. The scientific method can be applied to certain subsets of the general discipline known as "philosophy". It's merely a set of guidelines intended to facilitate a rigorous inquiry. There's nothing particularly unique about its relationship with the natural sciences. Anyone conducting research can apply it.</p>\n\n<p>Here are a couple of other ideas on how it might to relate to what we now call "philosophy":</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>There are empiricist philosophers who have made an entire career out of applying the scientific method to their work, or at least arguing that it <em>could</em> be applied to their work.</p>\n\n<p>Bertrand Russell is a good one to investigate here, starting with his essay, <em><a href="http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/22894/">On Scientific Method In Philosophy</a></em>, which appears to be available online.</p>\n\n<p>In addition, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume">David Hume's</a> strong empiricist bent could be seen as strongly resembling a somewhat primitive "scientific method", and his ideas on deductive and inductive reasoning were actually quite influential in developing the modern notion of the scientific method.</p></li>\n<li><p>Also consider the subject of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy">"natural philosophy"</a> (which is the older name for what we now call merely "science") where the scientific method was surely applied rigorously. Before the development of modern science, philosophy and science were seen as one in the same. In fact, many long-established universities still appoint "Chairs of Natural Philosophy", commonly occupied by professors of physical science nowadays.</p></li>\n<li><p>There is also an entire division of philosophy known as the "philosophy of science" that's concerned with such things as the development of the scientific method. Perhaps they don't approach philosophical inquiry using the steps of the scientific method, but it must certainly play a role!</p>\n\n<p>In fact, the scientific method was itself developed as a direct result of philosophical inquiry. See the collective works of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon">Francis Bacon</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes">René Descartes</a>, two of its most notable founding fathers.</p></li>\n</ol>\n]	[1388148093, 1307522430, 1307522014]	[False, True, False]	[1, 12, 5]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The relationship between the Scientific Method and philosophy is an interesting and complex one. The Scientific Method is a systematic approach used by scientists to investigate and understand the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments to test those hypotheses, and analyzing the results to draw conclusions. The primary goal of the Scientific Method is to determine cause-and-effect relationships and to generate knowledge about the natural world based on empirical evidence.\n\nOn the other hand, philosophy is a broader discipline that deals with fundamental questions about the nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, and ethics. Philosophers often explore questions that may not be directly testable through scientific methods, such as the nature of consciousness, the existence of free will, or the meaning of life.\n\nWhile the Scientific Method aims to discover correlations and causation in observed phenomena, philosophy is more concerned with understanding the underlying principles and implications of those discoveries. Philosophy can help us think critically about the assumptions, implications, and limitations of the Scientific Method. It can also raise important questions about the ethical implications of scientific research and the societal impact of scientific advancements.\n\nIn this sense, philosophy can complement the Scientific Method by providing a framework for understanding the broader implications and ethical considerations of scientific endeavors. By engaging with philosophical questions, scientists can reflect on the significance of their research and consider the ethical and social dimensions of their work.\n\nThus, while the Scientific Method is a powerful tool for generating empirical knowledge about the natural world, philosophy can enrich our understanding by exploring the deeper questions about why we seek knowledge, how we interpret that knowledge, and what values guide our scientific inquiry.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730195838, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANdGQgTX98Y4XyOAt5MWpOYqtOPsO', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 320, 'prompt_tokens': 110, 'total_tokens': 430}}	8420.0	441.0	112.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/66bd18ebc35ec417c1c10ed8c1bacaa3?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	slashmais	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/112/slashmais	True	1103	3	12	1451468458	1307520310	1.307521e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/177/does-the-scientific-method-of-research-apply-to-philosophy	Does the Scientific Method of research apply to philosophy?	<p>The Scientific Method is essentially the effort to discover causation in perceived correlations of collected data. In other words it hunts for 'recipes' that can be applied to consistently achieve a desired result, and as such does not inquire into <em>why</em> something happens, but rather into <em>what</em> makes it happen. Philosophy on the other hand is more concerned with the <em>why</em>: what effect does this have on the trustworthiness of the Scientific Method as an philosophical tool?</p>\n	u0r6mrnSVwl2pA	56	0DkNC5dWxFR9FQ	NaN	None	NaN	182.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2	219	[<p>What you've read are primarily the earlier pseudonymous works. Kierkegaard is sometimes spoken of as having two periods of pseudonymous authorship and simultaneously a prolific set of pastorals written in his own name. If you look at a timeline of both together, you will see he published at a prolific rate and sometimes released a pseudonymous work on the same day as a work in his own name.</p>\n\n<p>In the title of your question, you speak of "understanding Kierkegaard" but in the body of your question, you speak of understanding the pseudonymous works. I will address both and the resources I take to be necessary for either goal.</p>\n\n<p>If you want to understand Kierkegaard, I would think you need the following: (a) a thorough background in modern philosophy especially Kant and Hegel, (b) a familiarity with Lutheran Christianity in Denmark and its history, (c) reading mostly the pseudonymous works of which I would recommend the following: Part of <em>Either/Or</em>, <em>Philosophical Fragments</em>, <em>Fear and Trembling</em>, and <em>Sickness unto Death</em>. In terms of his own authorship, I would recommend <em>Works of Love</em> and 1 discourse -- <em>Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing</em>. It would also be helpful to read editions that include excerpts from his journals which talk about his process of authorship.</p>\n\n<p>To understand a particular pseudonym, I would recommend reading <em>My Point of View as an Author</em> but also excerpts from journals which explain what sort of perspective the respective pseudonym takes -- specifically whether the pseudonym is supposed to be Christian [i.e., do they have faith?] or not and to what extent they are supposed to be able to see through the stages -- the aesthetic, ethical, and religious (or ethico-religious).</p>\n, <p>There is a correspondence between the 'direct' and the 'indirect' works. There tends to be at least one 'direct' work per 'indirect' work, that takes up the same questions and themes as the 'indirect' work and was published at nearly the same time. The parallels between the two bodies of work are very important, and you're missing a great deal if you read the pseudonymous works without the context provided by the signed works.</p>\n\n<p>For instance, October 1843 saw the publication of Fear and Trembling (which is indirect), Repetition (which is indirect), and Three Upbuilding Discourses (which is direct). The first part of Three Upbuilding Discourses is about (at least in part) how love does not depend on external circumstances, but rather on one's internal state. The movement described in Fear and Trembling from being aesthetically determined to being a knight of infinite resignation to being a knight of faith is precisely the movement by which a person comes to live as though the claim that love does not depend on external circumstances is true. The love of the aesthetic person depends entirely on external circumstances; the love of the knight of infinite resignation is partly spiritual and internal, but also partly external (in a different way) and so they despair; and the love of the knight of faith is internal and spiritual.</p>\n\n<p>This is just one of many such parallels between the pseudonymous works and the signed works. In fact, it's almost like there's a kind of conversation between the two bodies of work, between Kierkegaard and his pseudonyms.</p>\n\n<p>This idea is explained much more fully by Mark Sinnett in his book <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0951613626" rel="nofollow">Restoring the Conversation</a>, which is excellent.</p>\n, <p>Kierkegaard's goal for his authorship was to lead his readers toward a way of living that he considered the best that a human being could live. To accomplish this he used "direct" modes of communication in which he described for his readers what he believed (and signed it) and "indirect" communication in which he described alternative points of view that prevailed during his time. He intended his reader to see himself or herself in these alternatives and Kierkegaard would then develop these to their logical extreme. He used pseudonyms for this indirect communication. For example in "Either/Or", volume I represents the aesthetic life which, in its most complete form is Romanticism. Volume II represents the life of bourgeois virtue, Hegelianism applied to marriage, vocation and friendship. The exception to this account of volume II is the final letter of the priest from Jutland, which hints of a third way. For more, see my "Kiekegaard's Philosophy: Self-Deception and Cowardice in the Present Age". </p>\n, <p>There's an essay in Either/Or that made me think I got the sense of what Kierkegaard was trying to do. Kierkegaard had an extremely well developed sense of aesthetics. But here was this man, arguing that he had found a proof of why Mozart's Don Giovanni was the best work of music that there ever could be.</p>\n\n<p>That's a ridiculous claim, and he argues it pretty well. I got the sense that that was the whole gist of the pseudonymous works... that they're about complexity and sophistication and philosophical argumentation that's designed to lead people out to something further... and taking it so far that they're revealed to be preposterous.</p>\n\n<p>His signed works (I'm thinking Works of Love and The Point of View) go the other way. They're more religious, but so was The Sickness Unto Death. I thought what was distinctive about them was that their direction was in reverse. They went from sophistication back to simplicity.</p>\n\n<p>If the sophisticated arguments in Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works are still impressive, I think perhaps read more of them... 'till they seem ridiculous. I got the sense that the signed works were intended for those who had been broken or made weary by the pseudonymous works.</p>\n, <p>The answer to your question depends largely on what it is you wish to get out of Kierkegaard's works. </p>\n\n<p>If you're unsure whether reading the theological works are worth the effort, there are several resources that can help you decide: one is <a href="http://sorenkierkegaard.org/" rel="nofollow">D. Anthony Storm's excellent Kierkegaard website</a> which contains summaries and analyses of all of Kierkegaard's works; another is <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0691127883" rel="nofollow">Joakim Garff's Kierkegaard biography</a> which treats of all of the works, pseudonymous and otherwise, within the context of Kierkegaard's life.</p>\n, <p>Well, I have not read any of Kierkegaard's writings (but I'd like to at some point). However, an author who uses pseudonyms usually does so to distance themselves from the works that are attributed to the false name. Sometimes authors take up pseudonyms in order to be free from social or political problems if their true identities became known. According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym#Literary_pen_names" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, the Brontë family and Jane Austen wrote pseudonymously for that reason.</p>\n\n<p>Thankfully, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Pseudonymous_authorship" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> actually quotes the author himself on his reasons for using names other than his own:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>... As is well-known, my authorship has two parts: one pseudonymous and the other signed. The pseudonymous writers are poetic creations, poetically maintained so that everything they say is in character with their poetized individualized personalities; sometimes I have carefully explained in a signed preface my own interpretation of what the pseudonym said. Anyone with just a fragment of common sense will perceive that it would be ludicrously confusing to attribute to me everything the poetized characters say. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, I have expressly urged that anyone who quotes something from the pseudonyms will not attribute the quotation to me (see my postscript to Concluding Postscript). It is easy to see that anyone wanting to have a literary lark merely needs to take some verbatim quotations from "The Seducer," then from Johannes Climacus, then from me, etc., print them together as if they were all my words, show how they contradict each other, and create a very chaotic impression, as if the author were a kind of lunatic. Hurrah! That can be done. In my opinion anyone who exploits the poetic in me by quoting the writings in a confusing way is more or less a charlatan or a literary toper.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>To me, that indicates that Kierkegaard himself preferred to think of his pseudonyms as separate individuals as if they were characters in a novel rather than alternative representations of himself. It's not the case, it seems, that he was writing his "true thoughts" in his pseudonymous works.</p>\n\n<p>As to whether you should read them, that depends entirely on how important it is to you to recover the true content of the philosopher's thoughts. I've asked what I think to be a <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/728/are-all-philosophers-subject-to-a-variation-of-the-socrates-problem">related question</a> on the feasibility of accomplishing that goal in the general case.</p>\n]	[1411708470, 1401472350, 1338388473, 1334317503, 1312205376, 1310415597]	[False, False, False, False, False, False]	[0, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Kierkegaard\'s writings can definitely be categorized into the two groups you mentioned: the pseudonymous philosophical works and the non-pseudonymous theological works. While the pseudonymous works are more explicitly focused on philosophical ideas and constructs, the non-pseudonymous works, such as the "discourses," letters, and sermons, delve more deeply into theological and existential themes.\n\nThe non-pseudonymous works provide a different perspective on Kierkegaard\'s thought and offer an insight into his personal beliefs and faith. While the pseudonymous works explore various philosophical ideas through the lens of different fictional characters, the non-pseudonymous works express Kierkegaard\'s own reflections on themes such as faith, existence, ethics, and the nature of Christianity.\n\nReading the non-pseudonymous works can enrich your understanding of Kierkegaard\'s philosophy by providing a more direct access to his personal voice and beliefs. They can help you see how his philosophical ideas are intertwined with his religious convictions and his own struggle with faith and existence.\n\nOverall, while the non-pseudonymous works may not directly elaborate on the themes presented in the pseudonymous works, they offer a valuable complement to Kierkegaard\'s overall body of work and can deepen your appreciation and understanding of his philosophical and theological ideas. If you have already engaged with Kierkegaard\'s pseudonymous works and found them to be of interest, exploring his non-pseudonymous writings may indeed be worthwhile to further enrich your understanding of his philosophy.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727323634, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABa4YM2W7EIrTKIHlYThkZqxVd4Ir', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 299, 'prompt_tokens': 143, 'total_tokens': 442}}	55884.0	748.0	65.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3e00403e6a08fc4499057d8be5b85709?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Tom Morris	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/65/tom-morris	True	746	6	15	1411708470	1307573085	1.307708e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/219/do-kierkegaards-non-pseudonymous-writings-enable-one-to-understand-kierkegaard	Do Kierkegaard's non-pseudonymous writings enable one to understand Kierkegaard's philosophy much?	<p>As I read them, Kierkegaard's writings can be split into two groups: the mostly philosophical psuedonymous, and more theological non-pseudonymous works.</p>\n\n<p>I have read primarily the pseudonymous works (<em>Either-Or</em>, <em>Concluding Unscientific Postscript</em>, <em>Fear and Trembling</em>) and a few other bits and pieces (including <em>The Book on Adler</em> and the <em>Two Ages</em> review).</p>\n\n<p>So I'm wondering, do the non-pseudonymous works (the "discourses" and so on) add much to the understanding of the pseudonymous/philosophical works to justify spending time reading them?</p>\n	/o7AnFeX3QJGXA	86	5YBTXlV02suc8A	NaN	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
3	249	[<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz" rel="nofollow">Clausewitz</a>'s "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War" rel="nofollow">On War</a>" (1832) is a classic book of strategy inspired by the Napoleonic wars.</p>\n\n<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli" rel="nofollow">Machiavelli</a>'s "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince" rel="nofollow">The Prince</a>" though usually considered a political document, also discusses warfare.</p>\n\n<p>Both of these, just like "The Art of War", are primarily about non-philosophical matters, but contain still quite a bit of commentary that is philosophical.</p>\n\n<p>So these are simply two post-Middle Ages, Western documents. As others have noted, there is a proliferation of modern writing on the subject, but none that stand out as classics like the above two.</p>\n, <p>Many of the points in Sun Tzu's are very relevant even in modern warfare.</p>\n\n<p>Here are a few examples of quotes that can never die:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 2.\n5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never \n been seen associated with long delays.\n6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.\n...\n19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Sun Tzu recognizes that war should end as soon as possible, it is still true today. American invasions to Iraq costs the nation billions that wouldn't have been incurred if the war progressed swiftly.</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 2.\n9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the \n army will have food enough for its needs.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>American "foraged" oil from Iraq.</p>\n\n<p>Now, there are also parts that are outdated in today's modern world, such as this examples about chariot fights:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 2.\n17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been \n taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should \n be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used \n in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and \n kept.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>However, if you fete out the chariots, there are the abstract notion of rewarding soldiers, symbolic flag gestures, and how to treat captured enemies; all are still relevant in modern warfare.</p>\n\n<p>Some are also outdated due to technological advances, sieging a walled city has been much easier since the invention of cannons and modern missiles makes sieges more reasonable than ever:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 3.\n4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. \n The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of \n war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over \n against the walls will take three months more.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Some are less relevant now that the primary means of warfare is no longer foot soldiers/infantries. But infantries still are an important part of modern warfare.</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 6.\n1. Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the \n enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has \n to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>We can't just send a bunch of missiles and hope to win the war.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, some strategems are becoming even more important in modern warfare:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 13.\n4. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and \n conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge.\n5. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be \n obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.\n6. Knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions can only be obtained from other men.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Spying plays a much more important roles in modern warfare than it ever were.</p>\n\n<p>Sun Tzu recognizes the importance of being able to read the "ground" and how to best handle them:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Chapter 11.\n46. Therefore, on dispersive ground, I would inspire my men with unity of purpose. \n On facile ground, I would see that there is close connection between all parts \n of my army.\n47. On contentious ground, I would hurry up my rear.\n48. On open ground, I would keep a vigilant eye on my defenses. On ground of \n intersecting highways, I would consolidate my alliances.\n49. On serious ground, I would try to ensure a continuous stream of supplies. On \n difficult ground, I would keep pushing on along the road.\n50. On hemmed-in ground, I would block any way of retreat. On desperate ground, I \n would proclaim to my soldiers the hopelessness of saving their lives.\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>While some values might have changed since the time of Sun Tzu, there are many general directions that are ageless.</p>\n, <p>Art of war tried to come up with something that (if ever) could be considered as strategies to use in war, but these a days any fast super computer with sufficient data would easyly overcome any and all strategies that could be fathomed and articulated and even maybe understood by inferior human language and intellect, just like chess the real players are no longer human but machines. </p>\n\n<p>There is no philosophy in the details of how to conduct a war, but just strategies. Art of war was an operational manual in how to conduct war at the age of abacus and arrows, with mechanised snipers that never sleep and never miss a shot Art of war is a good pedesterian intoduction for military enthusists.</p>\n\n<p>There never was/is any philosophy in war itself. Operational research deals with how to maximise the costs to the other side while keeping the cost of doing so minimised. </p>\n\n<p>If there is any philosophy invloved at all, it is about wether to go to war or not, or justification of cost for winning, besides that war is just a game to be played out just like chess.</p>\n\n<p>PS: Most conflicts around the world today are not wars, as by definition of war there should be at least two distinct sides wearing distinct uniforms carrying distinct flags and playing by the rules of what used to be rules of war. </p>\n, <p>There are definitely parts of the Art of War that can lay claim to being philosophy in some sense. This includes such things as much of chapter 1, which explains the reasons behind waging war.</p>\n\n<p>There are also statements like "Know thy enemy" that may be sorted under philosophy at least in a wider sense. (Actual quote a bit longer: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.")</p>\n\n<p>As to the actual question, how the philosophy of war has changed, I can only offer my own opinions, as I don't know of any modern book on the philosophy of war and in any case I would suspect it has changed quite a lot during the last half-century so books may be outdated. :-)</p>\n\n<p>Sun Tze makes recommendations on when you can gain from war. These recommendations made sense in a relatively low-tech society. 2000 years ago a ruler needed not only the economic gains you can get from trade, but also the resources and manpower to defend himself, which required a large area any many people to rule over. </p>\n\n<p>Today, both as a result of the improved trade gains you can get from todays fast and global transportation, the developments in sanitation and health care that makes cities of millions possible, and as a result of the developments in weaponry that makes war a slaughterhouse, it is no longer possible to gain economically from making war. Trade will always be a better option than war, and you no longer need to rule over large areas to rule over many. </p>\n\n<p>The reasons of war have therefore changed, and is now no longer about gaining economic advantages. Except for defense, war is now only waged either to fight injustices or gaining political advantages by looking like you fight injustices. So this has changed.</p>\n\n<p>Sun Tze also, again reasonably from the ancient viewpoint, recommend that you pillage your enemy. "One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own." This philosophy changed when it was clear that crushing and punishing Germany after the War only had negative outcomes. Instead armies today have orders to treat the local population well, and after winning a war the victor is seen to have not only the moral obligation to help rebuild the country, but also an obligation to make friends with the enemy to build on future close relations to prevent future war and increase future trade. </p>\n\n<p>There may be more examples, but this IMO are two examples of how the Philosophy of war has changed.</p>\n, <p>I think that one of the biggest changes in war came with the apparent end of conventional warfare after the Gulf War. It is simply unreasonable for almost any state (a few exceptions, perhaps, but not so many) to expect to confront NATO in so-called 'conventional' ways and be successful. The Art of War speaks at great length of how generals should command, Sun Tzu even mentions that "All war is based on deception." But he took this only insofar as to attack when your enemy thinks you are weak, and to appear strong even when you are weak so as to discourage attack (Baden Powell truly embodied this in the Battle of Mafeking, which also led to the development of the Boy Scout Movement).</p>\n\n<p>Yet modern forms of deception are far more complicated, and warfare conducted in ways that appear far less ordered, than ever before. I think that some of the seminal works now would include <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/index.htm" rel="nofollow">On Guerilla Warfare</a>, by Mao Tse-Tung, and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051125210657/http://www.baader-meinhof.com/students/resources/print/minimanual/manualtext.html" rel="nofollow">Urban Warfare</a>.</p>\n\n<p>These include some philosophy, some straight-up strategy and tactics, and some ideology. With the current trends in combat ranging from conventional to highly asymmetric, I think that these texts should also be included.</p>\n]	[1308280056, 1307770252, 1307656862, 1307689396, 1307692194]	[False, False, False, True, False]	[2, 1, -5, 6, 4]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Yes, despite the enduring influence of Sun Tzu\'s "The Art of War," there have been several more recent treatises and developments on the philosophy of war that military enthusiasts and strategists should consider. Here are some examples:\n\n1. "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz: Written in the early 19th century, this treatise by the Prussian general and military theorist remains a classic work on the theory and philosophy of war. Clausewitz\'s ideas on the nature of war, the role of politics in warfare, and the concept of the "fog of war" have had a lasting impact on military thought.\n\n2. "The Principles of War for the Information Age" by Robert Leonhard: This book explores the application of traditional military principles to the modern information age. Leonhard discusses how advances in technology and communication have affected warfare and offers insights on how to adapt military strategy for the 21st century.\n\n3. "Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency" by Roger Trinquier: Trinquier, a French military officer with experience in counterinsurgency operations, provides a detailed analysis of guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency tactics. His insights have been influential in shaping modern counterinsurgency strategies.\n\n4. "The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World" by Rupert Smith: In this book, Smith, a retired British general, argues that traditional concepts of warfare are outdated in the modern era of conflicts characterized by blurred boundaries between war and peace. He advocates for a more flexible and adaptable approach to military strategy.\n\nThese are just a few examples of more recent works that offer valuable insights for military enthusiasts and strategists seeking to understand the complexities of modern warfare. While Sun Tzu\'s principles in "The Art of War" remain relevant, exploring these newer perspectives can provide additional perspectives and ideas for navigating the challenges of contemporary military conflict.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727342407, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABexLPOBOCq9KjU9QWcQYeXg6Q5WB', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 389, 'prompt_tokens': 217, 'total_tokens': 606}}	406484.0	325.0	84.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4c6b9d1f2d7a185311b008781e158324?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Edward Black	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/84/edward-black	True	5268	5	9	1421532216	1307647496	1.308015e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/249/how-has-the-philosophy-of-war-changed-since-sun-tzus-the-art-of-war	How has the philosophy of war changed since Sun Tzu's The Art of War?	<p><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_war" rel="nofollow">The Art of War</a></em>, an ancient military treatise written by Sun Tzu, is composed of thirteen chapters detailing strategies for war ranging from simply laying plans to the extensive use of fire and spies against one's enemies. For centuries, it has been regarded as the definite reading for military strategists, enthusiasts, and warriors of all nature.</p>\n\n<p>It's readings have been taken and adapted to seemingly unrelated fields, such as business, and has influenced great leaders and military men such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon" rel="nofollow">Napoleon Bonaparte</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur" rel="nofollow">General Douglas MacArthur</a>.</p>\n\n<p>My question is this: Since being written in ancient China, there have been many important advances in the technology of war, such as the invention of gunpowder, as well as many important militaristic events that may have influenced the world's views on war, such as the Mongol invasion and World War II. <strong>Because of these things, are there any more recent treatises or developments on the philosophy of war that military enthusiasts and strategists should consider?</strong></p>\n	U+yLPbRs6dG2qw	48	UqbgYVdxfPey4Q	NaN	None	NaN	265.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
4	294	[<p><strong>OUR</strong> world is a world in which 2+2=5! Put 2 plus two elephants into an enclosure in a zoo, feed them, and in 2 years, you will likely have 5 elephants.</p>\n<p>Conservation of number, and A=A, neither are the case for objects in our universe, so the logic of arithmetic mathematics is only approximately true here.</p>\n<p>Put two containers worth of water, plus two more containers worth of water into another container, and one will then only have one container of water.</p>\n<p>Put two plus two fertilized eggs into an incubator, and in a week or two one will end up with zero fertilized eggs.</p>\n<p>Et cetera.</p>\n<p>Math and logic are not aspects of our physical universe. They exist in a logic space, and whether a particular logic approximates, and to what degree, to some aspect or another of the physical world is an empirical question.</p>\n, <p>There is an extended meditation on arithmetic and determinacy which works out a strict/ultra-finitist perspective fairly well (<a href="https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:f93cf368-ef8e-4c49-8d96-bfcc48f3a5be/files/dkp78gh080" rel="nofollow noreferrer">da Silva Maia[23]</a>), such that the largest finite number <em>N</em>, whatever it is, is styled as being its own successor <em>N</em> + 1. (Such a number is presented as a paradigmatic example of an inconsistent mathematical object in the <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/math-inc/#H5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IEP entry on the topic</a>.<sup>0</sup>)</p>\n<p>At any rate, generally, per Kant, let us suppose that all existence claims can be denied without contradiction. Then ∃4, or ∃5, or ∃6, or... can be denied without contradiction. A sort-of similar phenomenon in transfinite set theory occurs when we "truncate the universe of sets at height <em>k</em>" (for some cardinality <em>k</em>). So again per Kant, it would not be that 2 + 2 = 5 is possible as such, but that, if we deny ∃4, we would say something more like 2 + 2 = <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NaN</a> (then 1 + 3 = NaN, etc.).</p>\n<p>But if we go the inconsistent or the looping ultrafinitist routes, then let us declare 4 to be the largest finite number in some possible mathematical world such that 4 = 4 + 1 = 5. This might be a way to get 2 + 2 = 5 while also having 2 + 2 = 4 (so that 4 = 5).</p>\n<hr />\n<p><sup>0</sup>The IEP entry on abstractionism in the philosophy of mathematics <a href="https://iep.utm.edu/abstractionism/#SH3a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">says that Frege's anti-zero is its own <em>predecessor</em></a>, however.</p>\n, <p>Leibniz introduced a distinction between accidental impossibility and absolut impossibility, and used 2+2=5 as an example of an <em>absolute impossibility</em> i.e., a contradiction. Accidental impossibilities are entities such as negatives, imaginaries, and infinitesimals.</p>\n<p>Other than that, 2+2=5 is easily shown to be equivalent to 0=1, which is the standard formula used to reference a contradiction in modern logic.</p>\n, <p>As I understand it, Gödel's incompleteness theorems refer only to the infinite sets. In other words, there are true but unprovable facts about infinite sets (say, sequences). There can be some patterns in the sequences, which hold but cannot be proven.</p>\n<p>But when concerning the predicates about finite sets, all of them can be proven in Peano arithmetic, including that 2+2=4.</p>\n, <p>Gödel didn't show <em>arithmetic</em> inconsistent or incomplete. Rather, he showed that <em>any formal system with expressive power adequate for expressing arithmetic</em> was either inconsistent or incomplete, and that no such system could prove its own consistency.</p>\n<p>There are infinitely many proofs that 2 + 2 = 5, and they can be as short as you like. But, unless there really is an undetected inconsistency in a system of arithmetic (say, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms" rel="noreferrer">first-order Peano arithmetic</a>, "FOPA"), they will all be proofs in a system of "arithmetic" that has either false axioms or unsound rules of inference.</p>\n<p>I don't know what a possible world in which 2 + 2 = 5 would be like. It is epistemically possible that 2 + 2 = 5 is provable in FOPA, but, since FOPA also can prove 2 + 2 = 4 and ¬(4 = 5), that would show FOPA inconsistent.</p>\n<p>Gentzen did prove the consistency of Peano Arithmetic, but his proof relies upon mathematical induction up to ε<sub>0</sub>, and is thus no use in persuading those sceptical of the consistency of PA. It is, however, an important contribution to proof theory, setting an upper bound on the principles one needs to show PA consistent. (By Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, that bound must be higher than the system of PA itself.)</p>\n]	[1729619612, 1729604623, 1729587879, 1729515359, 1307772010]	[False, False, False, False, False]	[0, 1, 2, -1, 9]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "The impact of Gödel's incompleteness theorems on the field of logic and philosophy has been profound and far-reaching. The theorems have raised significant questions about the limits of formal systems, the nature of mathematical truth, and the foundations of mathematics itself. \n\nOne important consequence of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is the realization that there are true statements within arithmetic that cannot be proven within the system itself. This has challenged the view that arithmetic is a complete and consistent system that can capture all mathematical truths. \n\nRegarding your question about the possibility of there being a possible world where 2+2=5, Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not imply that arithmetic can be inconsistent in all possible worlds. In fact, Gödel's theorems are about the limitations of formal systems like arithmetic, not about the truth of mathematical statements in all possible worlds. In standard arithmetic, 2+2 will always equal 4. \n\nContemporary philosophers and logicians have offered various interpretations of Gödel's theorems in light of these issues. Some philosophers argue that Gödel's theorems show that mathematics is a deeply human and creative endeavor, and that mathematical truth transcends any formal system. Others have explored the implications of Gödel's theorems for the philosophy of mind, the nature of truth, and the limits of human knowledge.\n\nIn summary, Gödel's incompleteness theorems have had a profound impact on our understanding of logic, mathematics, and philosophy, raising important questions about the nature of truth and the limitations of formal systems. While the theorems do not imply that arithmetic can be inconsistent in all possible worlds, they challenge traditional views about the completeness and consistency of formal systems and have sparked a rich debate among contemporary philosophers and logicians.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730196873, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANdX7aboYiqWQNXp0KV9forfFarpw', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 366, 'prompt_tokens': 173, 'total_tokens': 539}}	332872.0	624.0	46.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/9ff4031737d2e49d41a4aef1ab90b781?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Dan Brumleve	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/46/dan-brumleve	True	902	2	7	1451711345	1307768603	1.451697e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/294/is-there-any-possible-world-in-which-22-5	Is there any possible world in which 2+2=5?	<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems" rel="noreferrer">Gödel's incompleteness theorems</a> show that arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete, and that arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency. It is useful to believe that arithmetic is consistent, and therefore also incomplete, but <a href="http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath347/kmath347.htm" rel="noreferrer">there are other points of view</a>. </p>\n\n<p>It seems to me that both views are compatible with the consistency of first-order logic itself. Thus, I am wondering: What is the autopsy of the efforts to revisit logic in the wake of Gödel? Is there any possible world in which 2+2=5, even if the shortest proof of it is gigabytes long, and individually we have no time to verify it without use of a computer? How do contemporary philosophers interpret Gödel as applied to this specific issue?</p>\n	u0r6mrnSVwl2pA	38	KrUQkYgISnanig	NaN	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
5	341	[<p>Simone Weil, in the continental tradition wrote a brief essay on honour in her book <em>On the Need for Roots</em> which was written during World War 2, at the request of the French Resistance in London in 'connexion with the policy to be pursued after liberation'. She wrote:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>"Honour is a vital need of the soul. The respect due to every human being as such, even if effectively accorded, is not sufficient to satisfy this need, for it is identical for everyone and unchanging; whereas honour has to do with a human being considered not simply as such, but from the point of view of his social surroundings. This need is fully satisfied where each of the social organisms to which a human being belongs allows him to share in a noble tradition enshrined in its past history and given public acknowledgement..."</p>\n</blockquote>\n, <p>A problem with answering the question of what honour is seems to be coloured through the lens of the Romatics such as Roussea. The colouring shades current popular western culture and language. As we know, the Romantic movement was a counter culture to the industrialisation emerging in Europe at the time. The value of intuition and emotion, not pure rationalism. In the USA the Romantics such as Coleridge and Wordsworth were picked up and developed further by Emerson, Thoreau and Fuller - into Transcendentalism. This in turn effected popular culture in the USA and in Europe as communication methods continued to evolve and develop. Now, the number of adaptations of for example the king Arthur myths and the knights of the round table into film format is quite stunning. In this example of course we have the blending of honour within Chivalry and the whole chivalric code alluded to by earlier contributor.</p>\n, <p>I'm not sure exactly what your standard is for a "contemporary philosopher". But you're certainly correct in observing that very few of the well-known modern philosophers deal explicitly with the concept of "honor." And even those who might be correctly fingered as examining the very concept seem to shun the word.</p>\n\n<p>In fact, this is the subject of William Lad Sessions's latest book, entitled <strong><a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1441188347" rel="nofollow"><em>Honor For Us: A Philosophical Analysis, Interpretation and Defense</em></a></strong>, published in late 2010. Sessions is <a href="http://www.wlu.edu/x23721.xml?InsertFile=x23766" rel="nofollow">Professor of Philosophy at Washington & Lee University</a>. The introduction begins dramatically:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Honor pervades human history and contemporary cultures, not least our own. Yet honor is in trouble today. Dishonorable behavior is rampant, to be sure, but we are also confused about honor, about what it is and what it is not. Honor may well be ubiquitous, but the concept of honor is not well understood, either by those who live within honor groups or by those who view themselves as rising above any culture of honor. . . . [M]y account of honor aims at something even more ambitious than descriptive clarity with potentially universal scope (as if that weren't ambition enough!). By exhibiting honor as a <em>normative</em> concept, I hope we might come to see its value for us as well as for others. My account is therefore a philosophical rarity, for philosophers today share the general academic distaste for honor. For most Western academics, honor is a moral pariah, a concept recognized as important to others though not an idea to be taken seriously in one's own life. . . . [T]here has been <em>no</em> serious normative examination of the concept of honor as such. It seems that philosophers, like other academics, are not much interested in honor as a living value in our society today.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The publisher's description bills it as "the first contemporary philosophical inquiry into the concept of honor." Sessions himself says that, "Since the late 19th century, there have been no major philosophical studies of honor. Philosophers have occasionally written narrowly on academic honor systems, deprecating honor as obsolete and a tribal virtue at best, but not as a major subject for a book." He claims that, in fact, honor has received a "bad reputation" that is "not entirely undeserved," considering all the harm that it has caused in the world. He specifically cites examples ranging from terrorism to honor killings. </p>\n\n<p>But he opines that the problem really stems from a pervasive <em>misunderstanding</em> of honor, and that the concept is sorely in need of "clarification." Many philosophers seem to wish to "discard honor altogether as 'obsolete'," when in reality, the "notion of honor remains viable in the face of powerful criticism . . . and has important features which warrant our normative interest." </p>\n\n<p>His philosophical project in the book is to identify six different concepts of honor, which he says are useful in an attempt to make sense out of chaotic situations. These concepts include:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Conferred honor (or reputation)</li>\n<li>Recognition honor (which honors excellence)</li>\n<li>Positional honor (being placed higher than others in society)</li>\n<li>Commitment honor (honoring a principle or ideal)</li>\n<li>Trust honor (honoring a person, including his/her word)</li>\n<li>Personal honor</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>And in fact, he thinks that the sixth central concept of honor—personal honor—is the most important.</p>\n\n<p>Interestingly enough, much of the book's inspiration seems to have come from an undergraduate philosophy course that Sessions has taught on honor since 1999.</p>\n]	[1405133598, 1349228867, 1308129475]	[False, False, True]	[0, 1, 4]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "It's interesting that you're reflecting on the concept of honor and its significance in human societies throughout history. Honor has indeed been a fundamental concept in many cultures, shaping social behaviors and norms. While honor can have positive aspects, such as fostering respect, integrity, and a sense of duty, it can also manifest in harmful ways, like in the case of honor killings or perpetuating rigid social hierarchies.\n\nIn Western philosophical thought, the contrast between honor-based societies and rule of law-based societies has often been framed in terms of honor versus dignity. Dignity, as a concept, has been associated with autonomy, equality, and inherent worth of every individual, often seen as a foundational principle of modern liberal societies. On the other hand, honor is often seen as more tied to social status, reputation, and communal values.\n\nHowever, there are indeed thinkers who have explored honor in a more nuanced way, recognizing its complexity and potential virtues. For example, philosophers such as Aristotle and Confucius have discussed honor as a moral and social virtue that can contribute to the well-being of individuals and communities. These thinkers have emphasized the importance of honor in cultivating virtuous character and promoting social harmony.\n\nIn contemporary times, there are scholars and thinkers who still engage with the concept of honor and its role in modern societies. While it may be less common to find academics directly advocating for a return to traditional honor codes, there are those who study honor cultures and seek to understand their dynamics without necessarily endorsing them uncritically.\n\nIf you're interested in exploring this topic further, you may want to look into works by ethicists, political theorists, or anthropologists who examine honor, morality, and social norms from cross-cultural perspectives. Engaging with a diverse range of perspectives can offer insights into the complexities of honor and its relevance in contemporary society.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1727255287, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ABIIBFd3cCejHJydzHuRpPeFbO6jK', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 367, 'prompt_tokens': 301, 'total_tokens': 668}}	96859.0	654.0	87.0	registered	https://i.sstatic.net/00zTK.jpg?s=256	Ruben	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/87/ruben	True	3833	3	8	1405133598	1307967980	1.308217e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/341/which-contemporary-philosophers-deal-with-the-concept-of-honour-without-dismissi	Which contemporary philosophers deal with the concept of honour without dismissing it out of hand?	<p>Whenever I read about honour (the evaluation of a person's social status as judged by that individual's community), it is usually in a negative context (e.g., honour killings) or strictly comparative (e.g., cultures of guilt versus cultures of honour).</p>\n\n<p>This comes as a bit of a surprise, as my personal (though probably somewhat naïve) view is that honour has been an important concept throughout our evolution. Societies of law, on the other hand, came about rather late by comparison.</p>\n\n<p>The Stack Exchange network, for example, apparently thrives quite well on its reputation system, and the Area 51 "commitment" that all of you present here are upholding would be worthless if not for the "dishonor" of flouting commitments.</p>\n\n<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagakure" rel="noreferrer">Hagakure</a> may be one such important ancient code of honour, although I don't know whether there is much reasoning behind it (or other accounts of Bushido). When I watched Ghost Dog, it felt pretty deep, though ;-)</p>\n\n<p>Specifically, I'm curious if there are any thinkers that don't (out of hand) dismiss the concept of honour as inferior to the rule of law or conscience-based dignity. I would also be interested in contemporary thinkers who themselves come from a culture of honour and choose to embrace it, rather than dismiss it, but it's probably hard to find such people in academia. Anyone have any leads?</p>\n	QO5Kg7FUAjOzCg	11	brzq1LPz+vmTDg	NaN	None	75.0	377.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
6	349	[<p>Yes, Einstein was a philosopher. In fact, he had a doctorate in Philosophy. This sounds flippant, but think about it. Why do we get a bachelor's degree in science (BS), and master's in science (MS), but a doctorate of philosophy (PhD)? Because science is nothing more than a branch of philosophy, a specific way of thinking. Science is that branch of thinking (philosophy) that is based on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" rel="nofollow">Scientific Method</a>, and includes all conclusions that can be derived from it. As such, all scientists are philosophers.</p>\n\n<p>So it's not a question of whether Einstein was a scientist and a philosopher. He was a philosopher because he was a scientist. The OP mentions that many of his theories require "a philosophical consideration". Such can be said of all scientific breakthroughs.</p>\n\n<p>OTOH, the question of whether Einstein was a theologian has an entirely different answer. He was not an expert in the field of theology, and science does not directly overlap theology, so he is a theologian only in the sense that we are all theologians.</p>\n, <p>I think that Einstein can be considered a philosopher because he was deeply interested in the nature of time and space. To elaborate on the analogy with Newton, one sees that Newton postulates the existence of absolute time and space, thus making a philosophical statement. We must keep in mind that at the time Physics was called Natural Philosophy the two split only later (Newton's magnus opus was <em>Principia Matematica Philosophiae Naturalis</em>). The fact the Newton was also interested in alchemy and theology does in no way diminish his stature as one of pioneers of the scientific method. To summarize Newton was a great Philosopher of Science and a great Philosopher of Nature.</p>\n\n<p>Einstein established a new picture of the world, by dropping the notions of absolute space and time and by giving an explanation of Gravity in terms of the curvature of the space. As a side note it is interesting to see that Poincare almost obtained the whole of Relativity Theory but rejected the non-euclidean space and the equivalence of mass and energy because they were too unintuitive.\nAlso Einstein took part in the debates raised by Quantum Mechanics and the uncertainty principle about the nature of reality and the character of the laws of nature. </p>\n\n<p>In conclusion Eintein had a very important contribution to the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Nature. Of course this does not make him an authority on other areas (Ethics, Theology etc.). </p>\n, <p>Yes, he was, by his own admission.</p>\n\n<p>Einstein, in his <em><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#IntWasEinEpiOpp" rel="nofollow">Physics & Reality</a></em>, says that physicists must also be philosophers:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>See Howard's <em>Physics Today</em> article "<a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/58/12/10.1063/1.2169442" rel="nofollow">Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science</a>."</p>\n, <p>As with many such questions the answers we accept depend largely on us agreeing to the exact meaning of any terms used. To me Einstein was as Philosopher because he like all thinkers can be seen as such if one accepts what we mean by the term Philosopher. No matter what intellectual discipline one is seen as primarily being a participant of or to, the overarching discipline is one called Intellectual Enquiry. Which in my understanding of things is perfectly interchangeable with the term Philosophy. Scientists used to be styled Natural Philosophers. I see no reason why we need to abandon that description.</p>\n, <p><strong>Yes</strong>, Einstein was a philosopher, as well as a scientist. <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/9963/4556">My entire answer</a> to <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9115/physics-theoretical-understanding-and-the-limits-of-human-knowledge-understandi">Physics, Theoretical Understanding and the Limits of Human Knowledge/Understanding</a> is relevant here, so I will simply list the lines of evidence:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Michael Friedman in <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1575862921" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dynamics of Reason</a> notes the existence of the book <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0875482864" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist</a>.</li>\n<li>Massimo Pigliucci, in his blog post <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex</a>, argues for the importance of philosophy in physics, citing Lee Smolin and his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Trouble with Physics</a>, and also quoting Einstein himself being <em>intensely</em> philosophical.</li>\n<li>Michael Polanyi in <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1614275378" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Personal Knowledge</a> argues that Einstein's discovery of special relativity was a philosophical act. This is obscured by several historical fictions which Polanyi dispels with evidence.\n\n<blockquote>I want to recall how scientific theory came to be reduced in the modern mind to the rank of a convenient contrivance, a device for recording events and computing their future course, and I wish to suggest then that twentieth-century physics, and Einstein's discovery of relativity in particular, which are usually regarded as the fruits and illustrations of this positivistic conception of science, demonstrate on the contrary the power of science to make contact with reality in nature by recognizing what is rational in nature. (6)</blockquote></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>In case the impact of 3 is not clear, I quote from William James' <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pragmatism</a>, where he describes two ways of thinking about reality:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>THE TENDER-MINDED<br/>\n Rationalistic (going by 'principles'), Intellectualistic, Idealistic, Optimistic, Religious, Free-willist, Monistic, Dogmatical.</p>\n \n <p>THE TOUGH-MINDED<br/>\n Empiricist (going by 'facts'), Sensationalistic, Materialistic, Pessimistic, Irreligious, Fatalistic, Pluralistic, Sceptical.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>From this, we can see that Einstein knew the importance of being "tender-minded", which is traditionally a very philosophical stance: seeing the forest in the trees.</p>\n, <p>I would say he was a philosopher. It's why he spent the last decade of his life trying to prove that the universe is determinalistic rather than accepting the current understanding of the quantam physics model as complete at the time of his death.</p>\n, <p>At least some would argue for this; for instance <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Arthur_Schilpp" rel="nofollow">Schilpp</a> put together <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0875482864" rel="nofollow">this book entitled <em>Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist</em></a> for his series on living philosophers; the reviews would seem to indicate it shines as one of the best entries in that series. It seems to include some autobiographical material from Einstein himself. It also looks like it may provide something in the way of an intellectual biography as well as several essays by specialists, so it may be worth a look.</p>\n, <p>It merely comes down to how one defines philosopher: <em>liberally</em> in that anyone who thinks about knowledge and wisdom? Or <em>specifically</em> as in someone who has studied philosophy somewhat extensively, perhaps having degrees in the field? (This is what Jon & Eric appeared to be equivocating on.)</p>\n\n<p>It appears the OP's particular definition regards the usage of <em>philosophical</em> as opposed to merely <em>scientific</em> principles. This does not really make sense to me, as science done properly is a really just <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science">a subset of philosophy</a>.</p>\n, <p>The trouble with considering Einstein (or any other intellectual genius) a philosopher (or an expert in any field in which they did not establish themselves) is that it's difficult to separate their reputation from their accomplishments. Strictly speaking, Einstein was both a lover of knowledge (the literal meaning of "philosopher") and a deep, effective abstract thinker. Naively, one might imagine that a genius in one field will be at least a standout in any other field that requires similar mental ability.</p>\n\n<p>Sadly, that is not so. Consider, for instance, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views">theology of Isaac Newton</a>. Newton must be seen as the equivalent of Einstein when it comes to physics. Swap their places chronologically, and it's entirely possible they would have been capable of making each other's discoveries in physics and in mathematics. Like Einstein, Newton avidly thought of the "big picture". Most people would be severely tempted to accept his thought on any topic up-to and including philosophy.</p>\n\n<p>But Newton's theological ideas were mostly unknown in his own time (because of the threat of being tried for heresy) and as they are unearthed and examined with modern eyes, seem bizarre and unscientific. While it makes sense that a man so instrumental in calculating the past and future position of heavenly bodies would be interested in calculating the times of the start and end of the world according to arcane prophesies, almost nobody (Christian or not) would agree with any of his conclusions. In a sense, his approach to teasing out the mysteries of physics and solving the problems of calculus proved wholly inappropriate to teasing out the mysteries of the Bible and solving the problems of prophesy.</p>\n\n<p>I suspect that in time, Einstein will join the ranks of scientists who were considered out of their depths in philosophy and other fields. The list would include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras">Pythagoras</a> (philosopher, mathematician, and founder of the religious movement called Pythagoreanism), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler">Johannes Kepler</a> (mathematician, astronomer and astrologer), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe">Tycho Brahe</a> (astronomer and alchemist), and of course <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton">Isaac Newton</a> (physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian).<sup>1</sup> That's not a slight on these great thinkers, but a warning that we ought not take all their ideas as words from on high.</p>\n\n<p>On a more personal and anecdotal note: scientists seem to dedicate themselves to intense study within their field and are often somewhat ordinary thinkers in unrelated fields. It may be that the technological and mathematical demands of modern science make becoming a contributor in multiple fields more difficult than in the past. For reference, I learned the Pythagorean theorem in 6<sup>th</sup> grade, much of Newton's contribution to physics and math in high school, and struggled through Einstein's work in college. Considering the equivalent progress required to be an expert philosopher (and student of philosophy), it seems less likely than ever before that we will discover true polymaths in this era.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Footnote:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>All descriptions taken from each thinker's respective Wikipedia page.</li>\n</ol>\n, <p>Einstein was not a philosopher. To express philosophically-flavored views and your agreement/affinity with certain philosophical intuitions does not make you a philosopher. If it did, then we would all be philosophers - maybe we all are, but then the definition would be useless. Einstein advocated a pantheistic view of God-as-Nature best exemplified by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza" rel="nofollow">Spinoza</a> - but such a belief is not itself a contribution to philosophy as a discipline. Of course people are interested in what Einstein had to say because he was an intellectual giant. But we can hardly call the (unelaborated) opinions of great men a <em>philosophy</em>.</p>\n\n<p>Now if you want to consider him a philosophically <em>acute</em> thinker when you say,</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Many of his discoveries would surely have required a philosophical consideration in order even for the theory to have been devised; his Theory of General Relativity, for example, was completely counter-intuative given the known laws of physics at the time.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>then, yes, I don't see anything wrong with that. But regardless of the creative/philosophical flair that led to these advances, the flair itself was not the contribution - the contribution was what this flair led to.</p>\n]	[1447817752, 1403733693, 1403730266, 1403684492, 1394051911, 1394045439, 1315080747, 1315102293, 1307997279, 1307992788]	[False, False, False, False, False, False, False, False, True, False]	[0, 0, 3, 0, 5, 1, 3, 8, 16, 4]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "Albert Einstein was primarily known as a physicist, known for his groundbreaking contributions to the field of theoretical physics. While Einstein's work certainly had important philosophical implications, particularly in areas like the nature of reality, time, space, and causality, he himself did not identify as a philosopher. \n\nEinstein's approach to scientific inquiry was deeply rooted in the physical sciences, grounded in empirical evidence, observation, and mathematical modeling. His theories, such as the Theory of General Relativity, were motivated by a desire to explain the physical world in a coherent and consistent manner, based on scientific principles.\n\nWhile Einstein's work had profound philosophical implications and inspired much philosophical debate, he did not engage in philosophical discourse in the traditional sense. However, it is not uncommon for scientists to engage in philosophical reflections as they grapple with the implications of their discoveries. In that sense, one could say that Einstein's work had philosophical dimensions, even if he was not a philosopher in the conventional sense.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730183634, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANa5azjXBmlcIqKSfCgOuRfa1X3Z5', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 195, 'prompt_tokens': 181, 'total_tokens': 376}}	59775.0	2067.0	72.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/487b39e86dd577c22005472b9a307b1b?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Jez	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/72/jez	True	16474	10	12	1447817752	1307991790	1.315079e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/349/was-einstein-a-philosopher	Was Einstein a philosopher?	<p>Albert Einstein described the fact that he believed in 'god'; yet, he did not define that god as a <em>personal</em> god who actually existed as a separate being. He used the concept to describe <em>everything that exists</em>.</p>\n\n<p>Although Einstein is commonly hailed as a great physicist, could one also say that he was a philosopher? Many of his discoveries would surely have required a philosophical consideration in order even for the theory to have been devised; his Theory of General Relativity, for example, was completely counter-intuative given the known laws of physics at the time.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, one could argue that he was thinking from a purely physical point of view, and that by trying to explain everything in scientific terms, he was explicitly avoiding philosophy and sticking to science. Was he a philosopher?</p>\n	UVagB2un2sPENw	79	j8kzS2EXQKwdjg	NaN	None	100.0	351.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
7	374	[<p>The specific statement "When, if ever, does the 'goodness' of a potential child's life make it morally imperative for us to give birth to that child?" can be reduced to a general "Do we have a moral imperative to do hard things that are good for society?" and then answered from that perspective.</p>\n\n<p>Do note that for survival of our species it's not really needed for <em>everyone</em> to procreate, as long as some reasonable proportion does that.</p>\n\n<p>You may say that the sole fact that the result is good and neccessary ("someone needs to do it!") makes it a moral imperative.</p>\n\n<p>You may say that it is a nice thing to do, but it's a recommended choice instead of imperative. Of course, such situations often lead to a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario if the society doesn't organize itself to change that.</p>\n, <p>People aren't serious. We suck as a species, and if you would but THINK, and not shunt responsibility to your genes (genetic fallacy?) you would realise our spurious reasons for filling this floating slaughterhouse make it a moral imperative to NOT breed.</p>\n\n<p>Who has kids for the benefit of the kid? Read ecclesiastes, what does all man's labor under the sun benefit him? Is it rational to speak of benefit to a bubble? A shadow? A reflection in a mirror, with as much persistence? The cost, the 'fatigues of the journey' is all that is certain. An 18th c suicide note reads, all this buttoning and unbuttoning. Truth. I'm depressed, but I still love reading, which my body interrupts with its maintenance chores. Further, since I don't want 'interventions' from beings as hopeless as myself, I have to keep up a basic social interactivity. I know that someone will suggest a vacation, or getting laid. Still more work. After all that maintenace bull(human)isht, why is existence, mere existence, so intolerable and in need of supplementation? And these things don't just fall into your lap, as it were. </p>\n\n<p>Simply, no-one says life is all pain, but no-one says pain gives life meaning (except mealy mouth-ed buddhist like Calvin's dad and 'building character'....pick some peanuts out mah shhhhhiiiii@@@@t). However, Joy, which is just about all that gives life meaning, is both not guaranteed, and guaranteed to be fleeting. COntrast this to NOT being chained to the need/desire wheel.</p>\n\n<p>I would like to call out Jon Ericson specifically ; "And I think that's as good an answer as exists. Whatever or whoever brought us into existence did so on its own terms and who are we to argue?" Others expressed similar sentiments but alluding more to the inertia of motion embedded in our genes, passing off chemical biases as philosophical insights. This I will mention merely to dismiss because most people smart enough to think in materialistic terms, soon grasp the philosophical lameplications of being digestive tracts that manage to replicate. Some of them even go on to read Peter Zappfer, who lived to be 90, but never had kids. Good thinking, Peter.</p>\n\n<p>BUt the willfully irrational like JE get up my spleen. This mindless conformism to an agenda we cannot grasp, internalise or adopt as our own merely because we quake in uncomprehending awe is the worst sort of response to clear and present overbearing preponderance, such as GOd has over us. This nuremberg following of orders is the reason JE doesn't need a cerebrum, a brainstem would suffice, as Einstein said of the Nazis. Yes, I went Godwin on your ass, for two reasons:\ni) holocaust aside, every Generation is a Genocide. We are all killed by death, picture a woman giving birth over a grave, and if this is repugnant, ask yourself if you are among the thousand men strikimg at the branches of evil, for every one striking the root. Not that I am blaming the Jews for birthing slaughtered offspring, but if they had peacefully died of old age like most wwii vets by now, it would still be as tragic and pointless, and if you stop sorting by cause the numbers become even more pertinent.</p>\n\n<p>ii) Your postulate is Might makes Right therefore God WINS, even though he is an overbearing azzhoul who created us on a whim, because he can't sit quietly in a room by himself. And we know he's nuts because he looked at the world ,"and saw it was good'. REALLY? I hope I won't have to explain how 'original sin' is 'blaming the victim', a tithe-producing jedi mind trick. </p>\n\n<p>It is immoral to reproduce. We owe god nothing, we owe the universe nothing, we owe our potential kids 30 seconds of rational, compassionate contemplation. we have no need to need, or cause needless needs in others. Our highest selves, the part that yearns for god, that wispy illusion of individuality, objective rationality, compassion, well it doesn't have much heft, but it has class. It has this: That it will not participate in this sordid waste of organic material. No obligation to take anyone or anything out of its/your misery, but to cold-bloodedly (or worse, senitmentally) consign someone else to this?? Gott verbot, Himmel Verbot!!! </p>\n\n<p>Sorry to necro this post, but I think these concerns are valid as long as humanity is a going concern, also I was impressed by the lucidity you all demand of each other. WHich made it so hard to watch simple-minded red herrings form the axioms of what was so lucidly postulated.</p>\n, <p>I am not aware of canonical answers, but a few strong ones spring to mind (Springer's comments not among them):</p>\n\n<p>(1) If we have any obligation to future generations at all, making them non-existent is, if we are wrong that we should do so, the biggest and most permanent mistake that it is possible to make. Things would have to be so radically different from how they are now in order for us to be adequately convinced that ending humanity was the right thing to do, that we cannot reason about it. For the foreseeable future, the risk of making an unrecoverable mistake is unacceptably high.</p>\n\n<p>(2) We, along with other living organisms, are built (by evolutionary processes) to create and safeguard future generations. That we exist at all is because of this; that we have morality at all (or goals and desires at all) is because of this. Intentionally terminating our existence means that we are fundamentally broken, and robs us of any sort of justification for using our goals and desires to guide our actions.</p>\n\n<p>(3) Our ancestors didn't create us so that we could party to extinction. We cannot repay them except by creating another generation, so we are obligated to create another generation.</p>\n\n<p>The last one only applies to partying--if we're all in agony and wished that our ancestors had not created us, then we have no obligation to return their favor. The first two apply regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant we find our situation.</p>\n, <p>Interestingly, a friend and I struggled with the opposite conundrum from what concerns Singer. We were both married to women who did not wish to have more children. My friend commented to me that submitting to sterilization would be like killing his unborn and unconceived children. As soon as he said it, I understood my own grief. How could anyone choose between the idea that conceiving children brings more suffering into the world and the idea that not conceiving children denies them the benefits of existence? </p>\n\n<p>(I should note in passing that we have both resolved our conundrum: his wife suddenly desired children and is now a wonderful mother, and I learned to sacrifice my desires for the needs of my wife and be content with our only son.)</p>\n\n<p>As far as I see, the only way to chose would be to have a detailed accounting of the value of existence versus nonexistence and compare it to the negative value of suffering. And there are a few other unobtainable figures you would need to be anything like accurate. When you start to think of it in this way, it fails the smell test. </p>\n\n<p>Singer seems to couch is argument as if it's a relatively new idea that arises from global climate change or the population explosion or whatever apocalypse is of the moment. (I made the mistake of glancing at the comments of the original article. What a cynical bunch! I may be ashamed of my own generation.) But it's not new at all. One of our oldest texts is dedicated to the question:</p>\n\n<pre><code> After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. And Job said:\n\n“Let the day perish on which I was born,\n and the night that said,\n ‘A man is conceived.’\n Let that day be darkness!\n May God above not seek it,\n nor light shine upon it.\n Let gloom and deep darkness claim it.\n Let clouds dwell upon it;\n let the blackness of the day terrify it.\n ... ”\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Job goes on like this for a while and explores the horror of existence with his friend for many pages. And here is the answer they arrive at:</p>\n\n<pre><code> And the Lord said to Job:\n\n“Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?\n He who argues with God, let him answer it.”\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>And I think that's as good an answer as exists. Whatever or whoever brought us into existence did so on its own terms and who are we to argue?</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Xodarap asked in the comments:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>But surely we do argue with God - every time we choose to have or not have sex, we're taking a stance on this issue, no?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In a word: no. You have it all wrong. That would be like suggesting that every time we take a journey or stay at home, we are taking a stance on the issue of Immaterialism. Or perhaps more to the point, we can reject or accept Immaterialism completely independent of how we chose to spend our time. Accepting it might slightly bias us toward staying at home (I imagine), but we wouldn't be rejecting our ideals by traveling to a distant country.</p>\n\n<p>Having struggled with the question of physical reproduction, I would further suggest that anyone who includes Singer's suggestion as a factor in their decision is a fool and deserves their own fate. I don't have any real argument for that, however.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Tangentially, the value of existence over nonexistence is a critical premise in the ontological argument for God. As far as I can see, rejecting the premise is the simplest possible objection to the argument since it completely sidesteps the more difficult problem of whether the argument is itself valid. </p>\n, <p>Singer outlines his claim in a little more depth in the next paragraph:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>My sense is that this is mainly a rhetorical flourish to provoke thought as he ends up arguing life is indeed worth living after all in his conclusion:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?</p>\n</blockquote>\n]	[1394404803, 1391324707, 1345308366, 1308266544, 1308100001]	[False, False, False, False, False]	[0, 0, 2, 2, 2]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "The paragraph you're referencing raises a thought-provoking question about whether it would be morally permissible or even preferable for humanity to willingly choose to become extinct to avoid the suffering and problems that can come with existence. It challenges the assumption that continued human existence is always a net positive and questions the ethical implications of imposing life on potential future generations.\n\nIn response to the question framed in the opposite way, regarding the 'goodness' of a potential child's life and whether it makes it morally imperative for us to give birth to that child, it is indeed a complex and ethically nuanced matter. The issue at hand involves balancing the potential benefits and positives of a new life with the risks, suffering, and challenges inherent in existence.\n\nWhen considering this question, it is important to take into account various moral considerations and ethical frameworks. Some ethical perspectives might prioritize the avoidance of suffering and the promotion of well-being, suggesting that bringing a child into existence should only be justified if their life has a high probability of being positive and fulfilling.\n\nOthers may argue that the value of life itself, regardless of the specific circumstances, is inherently significant and that the potential for happiness and meaningful experiences justifies the continuation of life through procreation.\n\nHowever, as you mentioned, embracing either extreme position—always having children or never having children—could lead to problematic conclusions. Striking a balance between acknowledging the potential benefits and harms of existence while also understanding the responsibilities of procreation is necessary.\n\nUltimately, the decision to bring a new life into the world and the moral imperatives associated with it are deeply personal and influenced by a multitude of factors. It requires careful consideration of the impacts of our actions on future generations and the broader implications for the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730196265, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANdNJjqbb4uPuwFhzyqBRT6r9ZA88', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 351, 'prompt_tokens': 232, 'total_tokens': 583}}	140666.0	2818.0	162.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4881e74d5b966aca3f5945a974e8d91b?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Xodarap	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/162/xodarap	True	1671	5	22	1451594653	1308098363	1.451595e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/374/what-responses-are-there-to-singers-should-this-be-the-last-generation	What responses are there to Singer's "Should this be the last generation?"?	<p>The article can be found <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/">here</a>.</p>\n\n<p>It deals with many issues, but what I would really like to see a response to is the following paragraph:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[W]hy don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>What, if anything, would be wrong with "partying our way into extinction"?</p>\n\n<p><strong>EDIT</strong>: At Joe's suggestion, I would like to clarify the question. To phrase it in the opposite way of Singer: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>When, if ever, does the 'goodness' of a potential child's life make it morally imperative for us to give birth to that child? </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If we say "always", we might run into the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/">repugnant conclusion</a> as well as the uncomfortable feeling that having children should be mandatory. If we say "never", we would run into extinction.</p>\n\n<p>So any potential response must be more cautious than Singer's flippant "life is worth living" at the end of the article. </p>\n	u0r6mrnSVwl2pA	48	HPEO2DOoiNqncw	NaN	None	64.0	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
8	380	[<p>Specifically on the point you mention (incommensurability), I don't believe he recanted but clarified or refined his definition of the term:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Most readers of my texxt has supposed that when I spoke of theories as incommensurable, I meant that they could not be compared. But 'incommensurability' is a term borrowed from mathematics, and it there has no such implication. The hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle is incommensurable with its side, but the two can be compared to any required degree of precision. What is lacking is not comparability but a unit of length in terms of which both can be measured directly and exactly. In applying the term 'incommensurability' to theories, I had intended only to insist that there was no common language within which both could fully expressed and which could therefore be used in a point-by-point comparison between them."\n - Kuhn, "Hermeneutics and Social Science," <em>Cultural Hermeneutics</em> 2 (1975):312</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Concerning Paradigms, Kuhn regretted the use of the term, but that was because of the ambiguity. More caustic critics claimed that the structure of scientific revolutions contained dozens of meanings for the word 'paradigm' (I seem to recall someone saying it got close to the triple digits). For his own part, Kuhn admitted to carelessly using the term in a few places, which opened up the work for extreme interpretations.</p>\n\n<p>The subject is well-treated in Richard J. Bernstein's "Science, Rationality, Incommensurability" in Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (1983). Read the excellent work if you get a chance and this question genuinely interests you.</p>\n, <p>It is certainly the case that later Kuhn didn't talk in such strident terms about incommensurability, or the social factors determining theory choice, for example. However, I think there's a question about whether this is a genuine shift in his thinking, or just a smoothing out of his early rhetoric. For example, in his (1977) he seems to be suggesting that the values involved in theory choice, while not epistemic (truth conducive) might not be as determined by arbitrary social values as is suggested in <em>Revolutions</em>. But the way he's writing there, it doesn't seem like he's suggesting he's changed his mind, but rather that people misunderstood what he'd been trying to say earlier.</p>\n\n<p>Kuhn, T. (1977), “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, in <em>The Essential Tension</em>, 320-339, University of Chicago Press. </p>\n]	[1354942165, 1308219062]	[False, True]	[7, 9]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Yes, it is true that later in his life, Thomas Kuhn did refine and clarify some of the more radical claims made in his seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn acknowledged that paradigms are not completely incommensurable, as he had originally posited, and that meaningful comparisons between different paradigms could indeed be made. He also clarified that while scientific progress is not purely linear or cumulative, it is still possible to evaluate paradigms and argue that one may be more effective or successful than another based on certain criteria or objectives. Kuhn\'s later writings and contributions to the philosophy of science demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the nature of scientific change and the assessment of competing paradigms.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730193167, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANcZLyXTmocazBkD7PwRjvAGKhJT5', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 148, 'prompt_tokens': 113, 'total_tokens': 261}}	140666.0	2818.0	162.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4881e74d5b966aca3f5945a974e8d91b?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Xodarap	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/162/xodarap	True	367	2	11	1450987820	1308168311	1.450988e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/380/did-kuhn-recant	Did Kuhn "recant"?	<p>I've heard (from a source which now escapes me) that later in his life Kuhn retreated from some of the more relativistic claims of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions">The Structure of Sceintific Revolutions</a>. Specifically, I think I remember hearing that he retreated from the claim that paradigms are "incommensurable" to a belief that one paradigm could, in some sense, be considered "better" than another.</p>\n\n<p>Does anyone know if this is correct?</p>\n	RBsIevw20cWA3A	5	xBQ4Sa6h/1/NhQ	NaN	None	64.0	405.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
9	411	[<p>Having read that other question, I think I understand the issue. I'll do my best without LaTeX, but this might not be pretty.</p>\n\n<p>Suppose we consider everyone's utility to be of equal value. The total utility of a population would be the sum of each person's utility, i.e. <code>utility_total = utility_1 + utility_2 + ...</code></p>\n\n<p>By the definition of arithmetic mean, we can see that <code>utility_total = mean * number_of_people</code>. So an equivalent definition of <code>utility_total</code> deals with the arithmetic mean.</p>\n\n<p>Here's where I think the confusion happens: <code>utility_total</code> does not deal <em>only</em> with the mean. It also includes the number of people. </p>\n\n<p>So if adding this person would decrease the mean utility, that would be OK so long as net utility was increased. If their utility was positive, then it is guaranteed to increase net utility, so essentially the question "should we bring person X into the world" is just "will person X have positive utility?" Which (in your scenario) is independent of others' utilities, and so there is no problem.</p>\n\n<p>EDIT: to be clear, this is what is sometimes known as "total utilitarianism". There does exist a <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/#IntNewWayAggWelMeaVal" rel="nofollow">variant</a> of utilitarianism which does consider solely the average utility. In its naive form, your criticism is valid. I think proponents usually have some sort of "two-level" thinking whereby they switch between total and average utilitarianism as necessary. </p>\n\n<p>To the best of my knowledge, "utilitarianism" usually means "total utilitarianism", which is why I answered this question this way. If you were interested in a defense of average utilitarianism, let me know.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>EDIT 2: There are many possible solutions to the repugnant conclusion. So I'll give my favorite: there is <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0199296421" rel="nofollow">no such thing</a> as a life worth living.</p>\n\n<p>I like it partly for shock value, but it also makes a good point: there is a fundamental difference between "this life is so good it requires you to be born" and "this life is so good it requires you to not die." I.e. once you've been born, moral laws apply to you which didn't apply before you were born.</p>\n]	[1308259694]	[True]	[2]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "In the context of utilitarianism, there are variations such as average utilitarianism and total utilitarianism that have different approaches to dealing with adding more people and evaluating outcomes. Let's explore how each of these variations might handle the situations you described:\n\n1. Average Utilitarianism: In average utilitarianism, the focus is on maximizing the average level of happiness or well-being in a given population. If adding a new person to the population would decrease the overall average happiness, then according to this framework, the action might be considered morally problematic.\n\nIn the scenario you presented where adding a new person slightly less happy than others would bring down the average happiness of the population, average utilitarianism would indeed suggest that the action should not be performed. This particular feature of average utilitarianism might indeed raise concerns about its consistency when dealing with the moral implications of adding new individuals.\n\n2. Total Utilitarianism: In contrast to average utilitarianism, total utilitarianism evaluates outcomes based on the total sum of happiness or well-being in a population, regardless of how that happiness is distributed among individuals. Total utilitarianism prioritizes maximizing the total amount of well-being or happiness, even if it means that some individuals might have lower levels of well-being compared to others.\n\nWhen considering the repugnant conclusion - that having a much larger population living in barely positive conditions could be viewed as better than a smaller population of very happy people - total utilitarianism might indeed lead to counterintuitive or unsettling implications. This is because total utilitarianism focuses on the overall sum of well-being rather than the average, which could lead to prioritizing sheer quantity of happiness over its quality.\n\nIn conclusion, both average and total utilitarianism have their own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to addressing the ethical implications of adding more people to a population. Each approach has its own theoretical foundations and may lead to different moral judgments in various scenarios. The tensions and paradoxes you have raised highlight some of the complexities inherent in utilitarian ethical theories when dealing with questions of population ethics and well-being distribution.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730196807, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANdW3vEoJ0h7sJFQCD3gQ1jO9L0eO', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 421, 'prompt_tokens': 218, 'total_tokens': 639}}	55284.0	569.0	184.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a8c9322c0aff859ec2ab977c728200d1?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG	Casebash	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/184/casebash	True	375	1	4	1451696733	1308226503	1.492087e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/411/how-does-utilitarianism-deal-with-adding-more-people	How does utilitarianism deal with adding more people?	<p>How does utilitarianism deal with adding more people? (Question updated to include total utilitarianism)</p>\n\n<p>Firstly, suppose we are using average utilitarianism. Suppose everyone in the world is super happy, we then "magically" generate a new person who is only slightly less happy and will not affect the happiness of anybody already existing. If we are just using an average, then we have then decreased it and so we should choose not to perform the action. It seems paradoxical that the morality of bringing this new person into the world depends on the happiness of everyone else. Can utilitarianism deal with this in a consistent manner?</p>\n\n<p>Secondly, suppose we are using total utilitarianism. We then end up with the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/#IntNewWayAggWelMeaVal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">repugnant condition</a> - that rather than having a small population very happy people, it would be better to have a much larger population of people living in terrible conditions (utility barely positive).</p>\n\n<p>This is related to my question on why <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/407/what-is-the-justification-for-averaging-utility-in-utilitarianism">utilitarianism averages utility</a>. </p>\n	u0r6mrnSVwl2pA	39	XiO/ss2CsCdhpQ	NaN	None	60.0	430.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN

	question_id	answers	answer_creation_date	is_accepted	answer_score	gpt35_0125_ans	owner__account_id	owner__reputation	owner__user_id	owner__user_type	owner__profile_image	owner__display_name	owner__link	is_answered	view_count	answer_count	question_score	last_activity_date	question_creation_date	last_edit_date	content_license	link	title	question	_dlt_parent_id	_dlt_list_idx	_dlt_id	closed_date	closed_reason	owner__accept_rate	accepted_answer_id	locked_date	protected_date	migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_background_color	migrated_from__other_site__styling__tag_foreground_color	migrated_from__other_site__styling__link_color	migrated_from__other_site__launch_date	migrated_from__other_site__open_beta_date	migrated_from__other_site__closed_beta_date	migrated_from__other_site__site_state	migrated_from__other_site__high_resolution_icon_url	migrated_from__other_site__favicon_url	migrated_from__other_site__icon_url	migrated_from__other_site__audience	migrated_from__other_site__site_url	migrated_from__other_site__api_site_parameter	migrated_from__other_site__logo_url	migrated_from__other_site__name	migrated_from__other_site__site_type	migrated_from__on_date	migrated_from__question_id	community_owned_date
2531	32254	[<p>This is not what <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">René Descartes</a> means in his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Discours de la méthode</a> (16737).</p>\n<p>He is commenting - with disappointment - on his personal educational experience in the Jesuit college of La Flèche:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13846/13846-h/13846-h.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">J'ai été nourri aux lettres dès mon enfance.</a> (<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">From my childhood, I have been familiar with letters.</a>)</p>\n<p>Je savois que les langues qu'on y apprend sont nécessaires pour l'intelligence des livres anciens. (I was aware that the languages taught in them are necessary to the understanding of the writings of the ancients.)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>He is clearly alluding to the study of ancient Greek and Latin.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Mais je croyois avoir déjà donné assez de temps aux langues, et même aussi à la lecture des livres anciens, et à leurs histoires, et à leurs fables. (But I believed that I had already given sufficient time to languages, and likewise to the reading of the writings of the ancients, to their histories and fables.)</p>\n<p>J'estimois fort l'éloquence, et j'étois amoureux de la poésie; mais je pensois que l'une et l'autre étoient des dons de l'esprit plutôt que des fruits de l'étude. (I esteemed eloquence highly, and was in raptures with poesy; but I thought that both were gifts of nature rather than fruits of study.)</p>\n<p>Je me plaisois surtout aux mathématiques, à cause de la certitude et de l'évidence de leurs raisons. (I was especially delighted with the mathematics, on account of the certitude and evidence of their reasonings.)</p>\n<p>Je révérois notre théologie, [...] Je ne dirai rien de la philosophie, sinon que, [...] Puis, pour les autres sciences, d'autant qu'elles empruntent leurs principes de la philosophie, je jugeois qu'on ne pouvoit avoir rien bâti qui fût solide sur des fondements si peu fermes. (I revered our theology, [...] Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that [...] As to the other sciences, inasmuch as these borrow their principles from philosophy, I judged that no solid superstructures could be reared on foundations so infirm.)</p>\n<p><strong>C'est pourquoi, sitôt que l'âge me permit de sortir de la sujétion de mes précepteurs, je quittoi entièrement l'étude des lettres; et me résolvant de ne chercher plus d'autre science que celle qui se pourrait trouver en moi-même, ou bien dans le grand livre du monde.</strong> (<em>For these reasons, as soon as my age permitted me to pass from under the control of my instructors, I entirely abandoned the study of letters, and resolved no longer to seek any other science than the knowledge of myself, or of the great book of the world.</em>)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Thus, D's famous intellectual autobiography sketched in the <em>Discours</em> has nothing to do with language aquisition.</p>\n<p>He is not commenting on the need of studying in order to learn new languages, but he is commenting on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Humanities</a> that are the core of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prytan%C3%A9e_National_Militaire#The_Jesuit_College_.281604.E2.80.931762.29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jesuit colleges</a>'s <em>curricula</em>: grammar, rhetorics, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, philosophy, mathematics, and theology.</p>\n, <p>During Descartes' times there were enough books with advices and theory on how to write (good) poetry, known generally as 'Art poétique' (e.g. by Boileau, Horace or Aristotle). Rhetoric had gained a new popularity with the Renaissance, medieval uses of Latin were treated disparagingly and books on Rhetoric, old and new, were marketed with promises to make you successful. Descartes would have none of this and apparently he looks at all of them just as today we look at books of this kind.</p>\n\n<p>He was somewhat of an enthusiast for promoting new science and thought that reading and writing such texts is a waste of time, so he argues that natural gifts for thinking or feeling are more important that techniques:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>J'estimois fort l'éloquence, et j'étois amoureux de la poésie; mais je pensois que l'une et l'autre étoient des dons de l'esprit plutôt que des fruits de l'étude. Ceux qui ont le raisonnement le plus fort, et qui digèrent le mieux leurs pensées afin de les rendre claires et intelligibles, peuvent toujours le mieux persuader ce qu'ils proposent, encore qu'ils ne parlassent que bas-breton, et qu'ils n'eussent jamais appris de rhétorique; et ceux qui ont les inventions les plus agréables et qui les savent exprimer avec le plus d'ornement et de douceur, ne laisseroient pas d'être les meilleurs poëtes, encore que l'art poétique leur fût inconnu.</p>\n</blockquote>\n]	[1455916863, 1455919768]	[True, False]	[1, 0]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Descartes\' distinction between languages as "fruits of study" and oratory and poetry as "gifts of the mind" reflects his belief in the different ways in which these skills are acquired and developed.\n\nWhen Descartes refers to languages as fruits of study, he likely means that learning languages involves a systematic process of study, practice, and memorization. Language acquisition typically requires explicit instruction, practice, and exposure to the language in various contexts. Mastery of a language involves understanding grammar rules, vocabulary, syntax, and communication strategies through study and practice.\n\nOn the other hand, Descartes characterizes oratory and poetry as "gifts of the mind" because he sees them as more innate talents that involve creativity, intuition, and natural aptitude. Oratory and poetry often require a unique ability to express oneself eloquently, create vivid imagery, and engage emotions effectively. While study and practice can certainly improve one\'s skills in oratory and poetry, these pursuits are often considered to be more reliant on talent, inspiration, and creativity.\n\nIt is true that both talent and hard work play a role in achieving mastery in any field, including oratory and poetry. While some individuals may have a natural talent for oratory and poetry, dedicated study, practice, and perseverance can also lead to significant improvement in these areas. The aphorism attributed to Thomas Edison emphasizes the importance of hard work and effort in achieving success, suggesting that mastery of oratory and poetry can indeed be achieved through diligent study and practice, in addition to any inherent talent.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730216629, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANiflc8VqEX32BE6tymvkU7K7f8i1', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 313, 'prompt_tokens': 251, 'total_tokens': 564}}	NaN	NaN	NaN	does_not_exist	None	user8572	None	True	310	2	0	1456086809	1455914358	1.492088e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32254/why-did-ren%c3%a9-descartes-opine-that-languages-are-fruits-of-study-but-oratory-a	Why did René Descartes opine that languages are 'fruits of study', but oratory and poetry 'gifts of the mind'?	<p><sub>Preface: Thinking this a question on Linguistics, I first posed on <a href="https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/16823/why-did-ren%C3%A9-descartes-opine-that-languages-are-fruits-of-study-but-oratory-a?noredirect=1#comment39714_16823">Linguistics SE</a> but was redirected here.<br>\nSource: p 76, <em>Philosophy ; A Very Short Introduction</em> (2002) by Edward Craig.</sub></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Admittedly, there is value in some\n of what he [Descartes] has been taught, and he gives a sentence each to the\n advantages of <strong>languages</strong>, history, mathematics, oratory, and poetry –\n though the latter two are ‘more gifts of the mind than fruits of study’.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I assume 'languages' to mean L2 Acquisition (as L1 acquisition ordinarily needs no study).</p>\n\n<p>Descartes's opinion above presumes differences in learning 'languages' vs 'oratory and poetry' which I do not comprehend. How are languages more 'fruits of study', but oratory and poetry more 'gifts of the mind'? </p>\n\n<p>Chance and talent affects L2 Acquisition (eg <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Savant Syndrome</a>); but if 'genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work' (Thomas Edison's aphorism), then why cannot mastery of oratory and poetry be achieved by study? </p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	81	nbWlq3HvRQX3VQ	NaN	None	NaN	32255.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2532	32278	[<p>See <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne/#FreJud" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Michel de Montaigne</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Montaigne rejects the theoretical or speculative way of philosophizing that prevailed under the Scholastics ever since the Middle Ages.</p>\n<p>He moved from a conception of philosophy conceived of as theoretical science, to a philosophy conceived of as the practice of free judgment.</p>\n<p>The <em>Essays</em> remain an exceptional historical testimony of the progress of privacy and individualism, a blossoming of subjectivity, an attainment of personal maturity that will be copied, but maybe never matched since. It seems that Montaigne, who dedicated himself to freedom of the mind and peacefulness of the soul, did not have any other aim through writing than cultivating and educating himself. Since philosophy had failed to determine a secure path towards happiness, he committed each individual to do so in his own way.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essays_(Montaigne)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Essais</a>: <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3599/3599.txt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Of experience</a> (translated by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cotton" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Charles Cotton</a>):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>There is more ado to interpret interpretations than to interpret things,\nand more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but\ncomment upon one another. Every place swarms with commentaries; of\nauthors there is great scarcity. Is it not the principal and most\nreputed knowledge of our later ages to understand the learned? Is it not\nthe common and final end of all studies? Our opinions are grafted upon\none another; the first serves as a stock to the second, the second to the\nthird, and so forth; thus step by step we climb the ladder; whence it\ncomes to pass that he who is mounted highest has often more honour than\nmerit, for he is got up but an inch upon the shoulders of the last, but\none.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>philosophical inquisitions and contemplations serve for no other use but to increase our curiosity. The philosophers; with great reason, send us back to the rules of nature; but they have nothing to do with so sublime a knowledge; they falsify them, and present us her face painted with too high and too adulterate a\ncomplexion, whence spring so many different pictures of so uniform a subject. As she [<em>nature</em>] has given us feet to walk with, so has she given us\nprudence to guide us in life: not so ingenious, robust, and pompous a\nprudence as that of their [<em>the philosophers</em>] invention; but yet one that is easy, quiet, and salutary, and that very well performs what the other promises, in him who has the good luck to know how to employ it sincerely and regularly, that is to say, according to nature. The most simply to commit one's self to\nnature is to do it most wisely.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>I had rather understand myself well in myself, than in Cicero. Of the\nexperience I have of myself, I find enough to make me wise, if I were but\na good scholar: whoever will call to mind the excess of his past anger,\nand to what a degree that fever transported him, will see the deformity\nof this passion better than in Aristotle, and conceive a more just hatred\nagainst it; whoever will remember the ills he has undergone, those that\nhave threatened him, and the light occasions that have removed him from\none state to another, will by that prepare himself for future changes,\nand the knowledge of his condition. The life of Caesar has no greater\nexample for us than our own: though popular and of command, 'tis still a\nlife subject to all human accidents.</p>\n</blockquote>\n]	[1456044087]	[False]	[1]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "In Montaigne's work, there is a deep emphasis on personal experience as a source of knowledge and understanding. He believed that our own experiences and reflections on them are crucial for gaining wisdom and insight into the world. Montaigne argued that it is through self-examination and introspection that we can come to understand ourselves and the world around us.\n\nRegarding the relationship between reason and experience, Montaigne believed that reason alone is not sufficient for understanding the complexities of human existence. He saw experience as a way to complement and enrich the limitations of reason. While reason can help us analyze and make sense of the world, experience allows us to engage with life in a more immediate and personal way.\n\nMontaigne believed that experience has the power to provide us with a deeper, more profound understanding of ourselves and the world around us. It can offer insights, perspectives, and truths that may not be accessible through reason alone. Experience can also help us develop empathy, intuition, and a more nuanced understanding of the human condition.\n\nIn summary, Montaigne saw experience as a valuable source of knowledge that complements reason. While reason can help us make sense of the world intellectually, experience provides a more personal and holistic understanding of life and human nature.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730216567, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANielqjAgifckCAINvo4wa4jWg8Ud', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 250, 'prompt_tokens': 179, 'total_tokens': 429}}	6614380.0	11.0	19438.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/c2b104088ec501554da02b2251a1b01f?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	TylerA	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19438/tylera	True	394	1	1	1456045790	1456019656	NaN	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32278/montaignes-of-experience-was-he-delusional-how-does-he-justify-using-experi	Montaigne's "Of Experience": was he delusional? How does he justify using experience so much?	<p>I've been reading Montaigne's Of Experience and, to be quite frank, a lot of his arguments seem circular in nature. </p>\n\n<p>He says that our own intuition “…is more familiar to us, and, doubtless, sufficient to instruct us in that whereof we have need. I study myself more than any other subject; 'tis my metaphysic, my physics.”</p>\n\n<p>aka… “Oh, I’m spending my life alone in the mountains with no contact– of course I can trust myself and my intuition more than other people.” Honestly, it sounds more like a justification for anti-social behavior than some philosophical truth. </p>\n\n<p>The question is: what do you think is Montaigne's relationship between reason and experience? What can experience give us that reason cannot?</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	82	OXGt5+qIveQHWA	NaN	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2533	32282	[<p>In the most technical sense of the phrasings, they are different relationships. Equality and identity are typically not assumed to be the same until one adds an axiom that states that they are.</p>\n\n<p>Consider a hypothetical example involving baskets and gold. We each have one basket, and they have an equal amount of gold in them. One could say the baskets are "equal," and in all but the most extreme meanings of that word, we would agree that indeed, both baskets are equal. Now I produce a new bar of gold and announce that I am going to put it in one of the baskets. Do you care if I put it in your basket or my own?</p>\n\n<p>If equality and identity are the same concept, then you should not care which basket it goes in, using the logic "because both baskets are equal, they are identical so I should not care where the extra bar of gold goes." Basic intuition screams at you that this is not the case. You <em>do</em> care which basket the gold goes in, because you would like to take more gold home with you. Thus, basic intuition suggests that equality and identity are fundamentally different concepts.</p>\n\n<p>This shows up in many places. In programming, two references to objects that are equal to eachother is treated very differently than two references to the same object. Also, intriguingly, in math you do not always have to define an equality function for the system you are working with. Typically you <em>do</em> choose to define one, because they're convenient, but you don't have to. In such case, you might have an identity relationship which does <em>not</em> imply equality (A is not equal to itself!) because you did not define equality in the first place.</p>\n\n<p>All of that technicality aside, one does have to consider the colloquial usage of the phrasings. It is generally assumed that, if someone says "2 + 2 is 4," they really meant the same thing as "2 + 2 equals 4." People often choose to lose precision in exchange for making it easier to speak. In everyday life, if someone told me "2 + 2 is 4," that is the assumption I would use. However, if I was deep in a philosophical discussion about mathematics, including the topics of equality and identity, I may not make that assumption. I may instead ask them to clarify whether they intended to use the equality relationship or the identity relationship.</p>\n\n<p>One example of where this shows up is predicate logic with the <code>≡</code> symbol, which is one of the most common symbol used for "implication." In predicate logic, implication is considered a meta-language operator. It is not part of predicate logic, but rather it is the symbol which describes an intuitive concept that suggests one can substitute one predicate for another, according to a set of rules. It is unique because it is the only symbol in predicate logic whose semantics are not described using predicate logic itself. Thus, if I was having a discussion about predicate logic, and somebody used the verb "is" to link two concepts, I may have to ask them to clarify whether they are referring to the equality concept within the predicate logic, or if they are referring to the implication concept outside of predicate logic. If it is the former, it is understood that the validity of their statement can be proven using predicate logic. If it is the latter, then it may be a more nuanced leap that needs more discussion.</p>\n, <p>The difference is that the first uses "equals" which in logic and mathematics is the identity predicate, whereas the second uses "is" which is an English word with a variety of uses, including ascribing a property, stating a relationship, expressing a membership or subclass relation, introducing a definition, or just acting as an auxiliary verb. There is another question about "is" <a href="https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30329/is-is-a-verb">here</a> with a lot of useful answers. </p>\n\n<p>In the context of the sentence "2 + 2 is 4", it is only feasible to interpret the "is" to mean equality, so in practice the two mean the same thing here. We might express that thing to be that the referent of the expression "s(s(0)) + s(s(0))" is numerically identical with the referent of the expression "s(s(s(s(0))))". </p>\n, <p>We may say that the two <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/assertion/" rel="nofollow">assertions</a>, i.e. two different <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/" rel="nofollow">speech acts</a> or two different written expression (grammatically well-formed string of symbols) express the same mathematical <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/" rel="nofollow">fact</a> (or <em>thought</em> or <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/#ConForHowSayMakItSo" rel="nofollow">content</a>).</p>\n\n<p>See also <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/#semantics" rel="nofollow">propositions</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference" rel="nofollow">Sense and reference</a> for <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/freg-lan/" rel="nofollow">Frege's Philosophy of language</a>..</p>\n, <p>We can say "Plato is a man" which in set theory means that Plato is an element in the set of Men. This doesn't imply that A man is Plato.</p>\n\n<p>One axiom of equality is that if A=B then B=A</p>\n\n<p>Plato = A man implies A man = Plato, however that is not true</p>\n\n<p>The axiom applies to real numbers but it doesn't apply to nouns. So the short answer is: it depends which axioms of equality you take.</p>\n]	[1456092124, 1456065914, 1456060706, 1456061339]	[False, False, False, False]	[0, 1, 2, 0]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': "It's perfectly fine to ask the same question on different platforms to gather diverse perspectives and insights. Each platform has its own community and expertise, so you may receive different responses that can enrich your understanding of the topic. However, it's a good practice to mention in your question that you have also asked the same question on another platform to avoid duplication of effort and to give credit to the community for their responses. Just be transparent about it, and you should be fine. Thank you for checking on the etiquette, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions.", 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730216838, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANij8furl3bnL4bJkAjN7iSeizYCq', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 114, 'prompt_tokens': 92, 'total_tokens': 206}}	2356294.0	1.0	19442.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/3a1b7d00d51625c7fa72089ed77e801e?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	user51229	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19442/user51229	True	134	4	-1	1456158129	1456059556	1.456158e+09	None	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32282/are-the-assertions-2-2-equals-4-and-2-2-is-4-identical	Are the assertions "2 + 2 equals 4" and "2 + 2 is 4" identical	<p>I asked the same question at math.stackexchange but I thought that the answers here could be quite different.</p>\n\n<p>I hope I am not breaking protocol/etiquette by doing that, if I am then I apologize.</p>\n\n<p>If I am breaking protocol/etiquette then is there a better way for me to ask this question to both stackexchange sections.</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	76	teyPb9I1ky/2dw	1.457125e+09	Not suitable for this site	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2534	32292	[<p>I think this claim is false: the line is important since it is a problem that interests many philosophers. Perhaps the author means that when doing philosophy on a specific subject (here biology) we can ignore this problem. Even then I don't agree. For example one could think philosophers should refrain from making scientific speculations because it's not their role, and the premises of an argument being a scientific result or a philosophical hypotheses certainly matters, so one should know where the line is. </p>\n\n<p>The argument provided is a non-sequitur: the fact that a scientific theory such as evolution has huge philosophical consequences does not imply at all that the line is unimportant. To the contrary I would say: if it were a mere metaphysical position rather than a scientific theory, the theory of evolution wouldn't have the same impact.</p>\n, <p>Both science and philosophy try to understand the world around us. Both accept that knowledge must be justified, or it is not truly knowledge (philosophy also explores other definitions of knowledge, but permit me to narrow it's scope to make the wording simpler). From philosophy's perspective, the path towards science is just an increasing level of strictness in what a justification looks like which is paired with an increasing level of trust we have in the knowledge once the justification occurs.</p>\n\n<p>The line appears when you look in the other direction, going from science towards philosophy. From science's perspective, there are several bits of knowledge that are presumed not to need any particular justification. The most powerful of these assumptions, at the root of the natural sciences, is the assumption that there exists a physical world whose behavior is governed by rules. From that assumption, many processes like the scientific method spring forth.</p>\n\n<p>From science's perspective, this is the key for any bit of information to be deemed scientific knowledge -- it has to follow these processes based on these assumptions. From philosophy's perspective, those assumptions are just assumptions, like any other assumption we make. They have their good sides, they have their bad. Philosophy can consider the philosophy behind Traditional Chinese Medicine and the philosophy of science as similar enough to compare and contrast. Science must consider TCM to be "pseudoscience," and refuses to compare against it other than to state that it is not science.</p>\n\n<p>In the middle, there is the philosophy of science itself, which serves as a way to go backwards against this one-way gate. A scientist can consider the philosophy of science as a way to relax the constraints put on scientific knowledge, and explore the question of whether there is or is not non-scientific knowledge.</p>\n]	[1456103115, 1456081172]	[True, False]	[1, 1]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The relationship between science and philosophy is a complex and nuanced one that has evolved over time. In the history of human thought, there was a time when what we now consider separate disciplines like science, mathematics, and philosophy were not clearly distinguished from one another. As knowledge and inquiry progressed, these disciplines began to branch out and develop independently.\n\nThe distinction between science and philosophy, while not always a sharp or rigid boundary, can be seen as a useful organizational tool that reflects the different methods, goals, and subject matters of each discipline. Science typically focuses on empirical observation, experimentation, and the development of theories to explain natural phenomena, while philosophy often deals with questions of meaning, values, logic, and metaphysics.\n\nThe reason there is a distinction between science and philosophy, despite their interconnected histories and overlapping concerns, is that each discipline has developed its own specialized methods and approaches to understanding the world. While there may be areas of overlap and interdisciplinary collaboration, the separation allows for a more focused and rigorous exploration of specific questions and problems within each discipline.\n\nThe quote from Edward Craig\'s book about Charles Darwin\'s "Origin of Species" highlights the idea that while there may not always be a clear line between science and philosophy, the distinction between the two fields is still relevant and important for understanding the different ways in which knowledge is pursued and produced. Darwin\'s work, while primarily a scientific theory in biology, has also had profound philosophical implications in terms of our understanding of human nature, evolution, and our place in the world.\n\nUltimately, the distinction between science and philosophy serves as a way to organize and categorize different modes of inquiry and to appreciate the diversity of approaches and perspectives that contribute to our understanding of the world.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730216691, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANiglMCHFTWB4Cw4DYOUt688qDASz', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 341, 'prompt_tokens': 313, 'total_tokens': 654}}	NaN	NaN	NaN	does_not_exist	None	user8572	None	True	336	2	1	1456103115	1456077953	1.592383e+09	CC BY-SA 4.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32292/why-is-the-line-between-philosophy-and-science-unimportant-for-philosophy	Why is the line between philosophy and science unimportant for philosophy?	<p><sub>Source: p 87, <em>Philosophy ; A Very Short Introduction</em> (2002) by Edward Craig.</sub></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Charles Darwin: <em>The Origin of Species</em></p>\n<p> The first thing we can learn from this fascinating book is not to bother\ntoo much about drawing a neat sharp line between philosophy and\nscience.<br />\n[1.] The point is not that the line isn’t sharp, although I believe that\nto be true.<br />\n<strong>[2.] The point is that the line (if it exists) is not of much\nimportance for philosophy.</strong><br />\nOn any reasonable way of drawing it\nDarwin’s <em>Origin</em> is science, more specifically biology. But because of its\nsubject-matter, and the claims it makes, very few books have had\ngreater philosophical impact. For it implies a startling thesis about us\nand how we have come to be as we are. It may not startle us today, but\nit startled most of his contemporaries to the point of shock; and there\nare still a number of people trying to perform the difficult balancing act\nof rejecting it without appearing merely ignorant and prejudiced.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><code>Central Question:</code> Why is the bolded true?</p>\n<p>To me, [1.] (belief in the line's sharpness) contradicts [2.] (disbelief of the line's importance), because if <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/34rh8f/line_between_philosophy_and_science/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a line between science and philosophy</a> really matters not for philosophy, then: why is there a line at all, and why did <a href="https://www.quora.com/Where-and-why-did-scientists-and-philosophers-branch-out-and-what-is-the-significance-of-philosophy-in-the-field-of-science" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the natural sciences</a> (and maths and other independent subjects now) separate from philosophy?</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	80	KORt2J2V91VcWQ	NaN	None	NaN	32299.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2535	32315	[<p>"Only Xs are P" never means "All Xs are P", but rather "The only things that are P are Xs", which is equivalent to "All those that are P are Xs". However, "Only those Xs are P" does mean "All and only the Xs are P". This is because "those" somehow makes the phrase refer to the whole group of "Xs", and so none are left out when asserting that they are "P".</p>\n<p>In this case, therefore, "Only those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken." means "Those who ignore the facts, and no one else, are likely to be mistaken." This is of course false in the real world, since there are people who do not ignore the facts but are mistaken anyway because they are not aware of the facts. But it is exactly what is stated by the English sentence. You then see that the argument is valid, but unsound. So you can say that this question is just a matter of understanding English, not logic.</p>\n<p>Those who disbelieve my answer can check the <a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Corpus of Historical American English</a> for themselves. To prevent bias, I provide here the first 20 results for the search string ". Only those" in the past 50 years or so. Almost all of them provide unambiguous evidence for the semantics I claimed. The rest should also be interpreted in the same manner.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Only those who have been self-supporting for a year are eligible for relief.</p>\n<p>Only those who have worked for their money ever acknowledge, in their deepest consciousness, the [...]</p>\n<p>Only those people are going to be hard to know.</p>\n<p>Only those West Berliners who have immediate relatives in the Communist part of the city may pass [...]</p>\n<p>Only those forms fittest for their particular environment survived this process of natural selection, the rest [...]</p>\n<p>Only those who work the miracle know what the hazards are, and they are not likely to [...]</p>\n<p>Only those vibrational distortions of the molecule which give rise to a change of dipole moment interact [...]</p>\n<p>Only those who've locked themselves out of society by barricading their doors with research books or [...]</p>\n<p>Only those who have suffered ever come to have a heart that is wise.</p>\n<p>Only those with gun permits would be allowed to buy ammunition.</p>\n<p>Only those near the door knew at first there was a shooting.</p>\n<p>Only those in the most extreme isolation, and these are atypical, fail to have an [...]</p>\n<p>Only those suffering from that plague called liberalism can say that these restrictions put by a legitimate [...]</p>\n<p>Only those who have denied their being yearn to play at it.</p>\n<p>Only those who have been through the process can truly understand how far superior is an education [...]</p>\n<p>Only those were safe who never loved and did not love. = Only those who never loved and did not love were safe.</p>\n<p>Only those local organizations can do the job of combining neighborhood resources and talents with the financial [...]</p>\n<p>Only those changes are held to constitute progress which directly or indirectly tend to heighten human happiness [...]</p>\n<p>Only those in the cockpit and the first few rows of seats were spared.</p>\n</blockquote>\n, <p>We can start from the true general sentence "All Fishes live in Water" that we can translate, according to the "standard" translation of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition" rel="nofollow">Categorical proposition</a> of "All F are W" as:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>()</strong> for all x, if Fish(x), then Water-living(x).</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Consider now "Only Fishes live in Water", that is plainly false: also whales live in water.</p>\n\n<p>If we translate it as "All F are W", we have now that, for the same interpretation, the predicate logic sentence <strong>()</strong> is both true and false, which is impossible.</p>\n\n<p>Thus, the correct transaltion of "Only Fishes live in Water" must be:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>for all x, if Water-living(x), then Fish(x)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>which is false, as we expected.</p>\n\n<p>In conclusion, "Only S is P" must be read as "All P is S".</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p><em>Note</em>. The same holds with "None but" in place of "Only".</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I've no access to Copy & Cohen textbook: thus, I cannot comment on their explanation (if any).</p>\n, <p>The most dangerous statement in your question is "I think one is biased towards the last sentence <em>because it says something that is more or less true</em>."</p>\n\n<p>The meaning of a sentence is <em>never</em> based on its truth value in logic, rather whether it is true or false is based on its meaning. If you allow sentences to have their most favorable meaning, you'll quickly run into trouble.</p>\n\n<p>It's always tricky and often ambiguous to translate natural language into formal logical sentences, but in this case, I think the only appropriate translation for "Only those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken" is <strong>"All [Likely to be Mistaken People] are [Those Who Ignore the Facts]."</strong></p>\n\n<p><strong>"All [Those Who Ignore the Facts] are [Likely to be Mistaken]"</strong> seems plausible from our real world knowledge, but it doesn't actually capture the <em>stated meaning</em> of the original.</p>\n, <ol>\n<li>Only those who <em>ignore the facts</em>[P] are likely to be <em>mistaken</em>[M].</li>\n<li>No one who is <em>truly objective</em>[S] is likely to be <em>mistaken</em>.[M]</li>\n<li>No one who <em>ignores the facts</em>[P] is <em>truly objective</em>[S].</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Thus the form of this is the second figure:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>PM</li>\n<li>SM</li>\n<li>SP</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>The premises however switched places and don't match the figure (It's SP, not PS). If we rearrange them we get the following:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>No one who is truly objective[P] is likely to be mistaken[M].</li>\n<li>Only those who ignore the facts[S] are likely to be mistaken[M].</li>\n<li>No one who ignores the facts[S] is truly objective[P]. </li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>By substitution of subject and predicate in the first premise, we can convert this to the first figure. When substitution happens in the negative premise that is universal, the premise doesn't change quantitatively to <em>some</em>, like it does when the premise is positive.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>No M are P</li>\n<li>All S are M</li>\n<li>No S are P</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Both premises are universal. The second premise is negative. If one of the two premises is negative, then the conclusion is negative.\nBoth S and P are distributed in the conclusion, because conclusion is universally negative, so they must be distributed in the premises as well. The M and P are distributed in the first premise because it is universally negative. S is distributed in the second premise because it is universally positive. The middle term, the subject and predicate are distributed in both premises and the conclusion. The argument is valid.</p>\n]	[1456159768, 1456171349, 1456240619, 1456159758]	[False, True, False, False]	[0, 1, 0, 0]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'You\'ve brought up an interesting point regarding the interpretation of the statement "Only those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken." It\'s true that the statement can be read in two different ways:\n\n1. "All those who are likely to be mistaken ignore the facts."\n2. "All those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken."\n\nBoth interpretations are valid, and which one you prefer may depend on how you view the argument and what assumptions you make. In the context of logic and formal reasoning, it\'s important to be clear about the interpretation you choose and to apply it consistently throughout the argument.\n\nIf you interpret the statement as "all those who are likely to be mistaken ignore the facts" in the first premise, and "no one who is truly objective is likely to be mistaken" in the second premise, then the conclusion "no one who ignores the facts is truly objective" logically follows. This is known as a valid argument.\n\nIf you interpret the statement as "all those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken" in the first premise, and "no one who is truly objective is likely to be mistaken" in the second premise, then the conclusion may not logically follow. This would be an invalid argument based on these premises.\n\nIn summary, the validity of the argument may depend on how you choose to interpret the statements in the premises. Both interpretations can be valid, but it\'s important to be consistent in your reasoning to arrive at a clear conclusion.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730217224, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANipML0Focm3ZD7JTXaYir53JxZF1', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 298, 'prompt_tokens': 245, 'total_tokens': 543}}	4594424.0	41.0	8022.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/5c6d020feb65179965c761aa6538ff09?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	Evangelion045	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/8022/evangelion045	True	782	4	0	1456301229	1456156704	1.456242e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32315/elementary-logic-doubt-about-interpretation	Elementary logic. Doubt about interpretation	<p>I have a doubt about the following exercise from Copi & Cohen Intro. to logic book. </p>\n\n<p>I have to determine the validity of the following argument: "Only those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken. No one who is truly objective is likely to be mistaken. Hence no one who ignores the facts is truly objective."</p>\n\n<p>I know that "Only S is P" is usually interpreted as "all P is S", as it said in chapter 7 of the same book; but in the same chapter it says that there are other cases in which it can be read as "All S is P". I think that in the case of the first premisse "Only those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken," both interpretations are correct, i.e., "all those that are likely to be mistaken, ignore the facts", and " all those who ignore the facts are likely to be mistaken". I think one is biased towards the last setence because it says something that is more or less true; although, in this case, I prefer the first one. What do you think about this?</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	69	feUIxMFiFpC7Lw	NaN	None	NaN	32324.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2536	32327	[<p>This sounds, on the face of it, similar to Platos critique of poetry in the <em>Republic</em> where he critiqued poetry, as mere <em>imitativeness</em> - a kind of mimicry of reality, and not reality itself; for; and what goes for poetry, goes for the other arts by analogy, as a Plato makes explicit by drawing the analogy to painting:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The painter ... is he not the creator of appearances?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Thus</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>we are agreed the imitator has no knowledge worth mentioning of what he imitates</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Because</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Imitation is only a kind of sport, or play</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Hence his imagined polis (city):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>rejects imitative poetry; which certainly ought not to be recieved</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Plato mentions also the theatre (tragedy) - and thus by extension to film; and this reading is quite commonly confirmed by secondary sources; however, reading further, Plato does actually allow poetry, but only of a certain kind:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>And we are ready to admit that Homer is the greatest of poets, and the first amongst tragedy-writers; but we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry allowed in our state.</p>\n<p>For if you go beyond this and allow the honeyed muse to enter, either in epic or lyric verse, not law or reason of mankind, which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure or pain will be the rulers in our state.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>And he rejects:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his art intended to please or affect the principle in the soul, but he will prefer the passionate or fitful temper, which is easily imitated</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So concluding, it turns out that Plato does not exile all poets, or all poetry; or by extension all art, and artists; he does not exile the muse, but merely bad art; which does not mean bad as in just bad - badly constructed, sung, painted or filmed; but also to their ethical purpose; however to examine what this means exactly, would mean further examining the nature of art and it's relationship to reality i.e. art criticism, or perhaps the philosophy of art.</p>\n, <p>From a personal perspective, I have come to realize that films are a great mode of communication, but there are downsides. The first is that actors will sometimes get too engrossed in a role and be unable to separate that from their own reality. In the worst cases, suicide can occur. The other is that violent and/or lewd content may cause some viewers to sub-consciously think it is acceptable. And last but not least, the film maker may have an agenda and gear the film towards pushing that.</p>\n, <p>After the edit, here's the Updated Answer:</p>\n<p>Film making itself isn't unethical, there's a clear distinction between what's a truth(fact)/lie from what's ficticious.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A lie is defined by <strong>A false statement deliberately presented as being true</strong> <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Dictionary Entry)</a></p>\n<p>A film or a book, or in other words, a story is <strong>An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious</strong> <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/story" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Dictionary Entry)</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p>Every story has to define it's scope/universe. It could be a complete new universe (such as Star Wars) or a spin-off from reality (such as How to Get Away with Murder). Neither events are true, but also neither are passed on as true. Both are ficticious. It doesn't matter what the story is, as long as it doesn't try to pass it on as a fact.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Since ficticious stories don't try to pass as facts, or truths, they cannot be lies. Due to that, film making, writing and other forms of storytelling cannot be unethical in that aspect</p>\n<hr />\n<p>However, this case is an exception. While I've personally not seen the movie in question, I've made a quick research on it, and found out similarities with 'Paranormal Activity', which I am much more at ease discussing. Interestingly enough I tried to look up a bit of information regarding Paranormal Activity's marketing campaing and I found an <a href="http://www.ew.com/article/2009/10/07/paranormal-activity-marketing-campaign" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article</a> that draws paralels between 'Blair witch' and 'Paranormal Activity'.</p>\n<p>According to the article (emphasis mine):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Most obviously, Blair Witch was one of the first films to exploit the viral <strong>power of the Web to stir up word-of-mouth</strong>. What made the campaign brilliant, however, is the way that it took full advantage of the murky/underground/conspiracy-theory side of the Internet to <strong>imply that the movie was “real.”</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>That's the key. If we assume that <em>"implying"</em>, or rather, not flatout lying, but intentionally misdirect people into believing in something that is a lie. According to the 'lie' dictionary page,</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To present false information with the intention of deceiving.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>That pretty much sums up the whole ordeal.</p>\n<hr />\n<p><strong>Conclusions to be taken</strong></p>\n<p>Fictional Works are not true. Fictional Works do not try to pass on as true. Since lying is considered unethical, and Fictional Works do not lie (as they don't attempt to be passed on as truths), then Fictional Works cannot be unethical for not being true (Note that they could be unethical for other motives).</p>\n<p>The Blair Witch Project as a work of fiction is therefore not unethical for not being true.</p>\n<p>The same cannot be said about it's marketing campaign. Due to being a work of fiction, 'The Blair Witch Project' is not true (while it <em>may</em> be based on some truths, it isn't <strong>100% real</strong>). As such, it would be unethical to try to pass it on as something that is true. Since apparantly the Marketing Team who campaigned this movie did attempt to pass the movie as being akin to a Documentary, rather than a work of fiction, then they were attempting to intentionally deceive the target audience, and as such, (assuming lying is unethical) the campaign was unethical</p>\n]	[1456255281, 1456249648, 1456197233]	[False, False, True]	[0, 0, 1]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'This is a thought-provoking question that raises some interesting ethical considerations. Kant\'s categorical imperative, as you mentioned, emphasizes the importance of treating others as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end. It also emphasizes universalizability, meaning that an action should be such that you could will it to become a universal law that everyone follows.\n\nIn the case of filmmaking, one could argue that while films may involve some element of "lying" in the sense that they are fictional representations, the audience is aware that they are engaging with a work of fiction. In this sense, filmmakers are not deceiving viewers about the nature of the film itself.\n\nHowever, in the specific case of "The Blair Witch Project," where the filmmakers purposefully presented the events as real through marketing tactics and false documentation, one could argue that they are not treating their audience with respect and are using them merely as a means to achieve their own ends (e.g., generating buzz and interest in the film). This could be seen as violating Kant\'s principle of treating others as ends in themselves.\n\nUltimately, whether filmmaking is ethical or not is a complex question that depends on various factors, including the intentions of the filmmakers, the impact of their actions on society, and the degree of deception involved. While entertainment can provide value to society, it is still important to consider the ethical implications of how that entertainment is created and presented to the public.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730217099, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANinLHDNfuDtvtXK2IUwqI0sG3Q2Z', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 288, 'prompt_tokens': 207, 'total_tokens': 495}}	1602041.0	143.0	19468.0	registered	https://i.sstatic.net/mqhvf.png?s=256	Alex	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19468/alex	True	247	3	4	1456274967	1456195173	1.456198e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32327/is-film-making-ethical	Is film making ethical?	<p>So I was reading about Kant's categorical imperative as defined by the universal law approach and the "mere means approach." The former as defined by: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”</p>\n\n<p>My question is regarding Kant's categorical imperative, is film making ethical? In a way films are all lies, and lies are one of the worst things you can do according to Kant as it would result in the breakdown of society (very idealistic I know). But, at the same time, society also values entertainment. Since a director or filmmaker is providing value to the ends (the individual watching the movie), then would it be considered ethical considering the following case:</p>\n\n<p>Case: <em>The Blair Witch Project</em>, filmmakers purposefully deceived the public into thinking the footage was found, and that the events actually took place with newspaper clippings, police interviews, .etc.</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	71	n71snMt4ON4DZw	NaN	None	NaN	32328.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2537	32353	[<p>Sure, you do it this way: </p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>If phi is an atomic sentence, phi is a wff.</li>\n<li>If phi is a wff, then so is "not phi".</li>\n<li>If phi and psi are wff, then so are "phi and psi", "phi or psi" "if phi, then psi".</li>\n<li>nothing else is a wff.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>You need some extra clauses if your logic includes quantifiers or modal operators, but the basic idea is the same. The definition of a WFF isn't circular--it relies upon the primitive notion of an atomic formula, but that isn't circular.</p>\n, <p>Well-formedness is a syntactical not a logical concept.</p>\n\n<p>Well-formedness of a formula is alike to syntactical correctness of a sentence or proposition. But whether the formula or the proposition is true, that's a second issue. </p>\n\n<p>Well-formed formulas may be true or false. While ill-formed formulas are neither true nor false. They are just meaningless. </p>\n\n<p>Hence well-formedness of a formula is a prerequisite in order to apply logical reasoning. </p>\n, <p>This is really a mathematical logic question, rather than logic thought philosophically.</p>\n\n<p>A formula or sentence of a certain formal language is well-formed when it happens to follow the rules of grammar for that formal language.</p>\n\n<p>Panini in India, was the first to write a comprehensive formal grammar of a natural language - in his case - Sanskrit.</p>\n]	[1456258372, 1456257172, 1456256901]	[False, False, False]	[5, 2, 1]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'Yes, it is possible to define a well-formed formula (WFF) through logical rules without presupposing any particular formula like φ. In propositional logic, a well-formed formula is usually defined as follows:\n\n1. A propositional variable (also known as an atomic formula) is a well-formed formula.\n2. If φ is a well-formed formula, then so is ¬φ (negation of φ).\n3. If φ and ψ are well-formed formulas, then so is (φ ∧ ψ) (conjunction of φ and ψ).\n4. If φ and ψ are well-formed formulas, then so is (φ ∨ ψ) (disjunction of φ and ψ).\n5. If φ and ψ are well-formed formulas, then so is (φ → ψ) (implication of φ and ψ).\n\nThese rules can be used to systematically construct well-formed formulas in propositional logic without needing to assume the existence of any particular formula beforehand. Each WFF is built up from simpler components using these rules in a recursive manner. Circular definitions can be avoided by starting with the basic building blocks (propositional variables) and recursively applying the rules to generate more complex formulas.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730216975, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANilLH9pQcSo7o9rV2KX4YxcGJq6g', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 247, 'prompt_tokens': 48, 'total_tokens': 295}}	5479555.0	73.0	13891.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/7cf20729579e875b7853fa47debd8347?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	esnafga	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/13891/esnafga	True	773	3	2	1456258584	1456256514	NaN	None	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32353/can-we-define-a-well-formed-formula	Can we define a well formed formula?	<p>Would it be possible to define (even circularly) what a well formed formula is through logic, rather than presupposing <em>φ</em>? </p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	73	Jy0a1qU1OoQjDQ	1.457125e+09	Not suitable for this site	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2538	32358	[<p>I think Derrida means more than just actuality when he refers to "presence." Presence in the sense of formal essence stipulates a <em>functionality</em> as placeholder but only in the generic sense of being indexical, or pointing to. This is presence in the more localized sense, what Deleuze associates with territorial reason.</p>\n\n<p>If we take logos in the sense of Heidegger's "gathering" as the intersection of sending and receiving, the mobility of presence goes beyond the purely formal sense. This is the kind of semantic structure that speaks to the hermeneutics of any possible readers and writers and shows the radical way in which presence is de-centered and, therefore, not logocentric--oddly enough. </p>\n]	[1456290655]	[True]	[2]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'In "Of Grammatology," Jacques Derrida challenges traditional notions of language, meaning, and presence. In the passage you mentioned, Derrida argues that traditionally, the essential characteristic of a signifier (a word, symbol, or language unit) has been seen as its "presence." This idea of presence implies that the signifier is directly connected to the concept it represents, giving the appearance of a direct, transparent relationship between words and meanings. This notion of presence has historically been privileged in Western philosophy, particularly in the context of metaphysics and logocentrism.\n\nDerrida questions this privileging of presence and argues that the idea of presence is actually based on a series of arbitrary and contingent relationships rather than a direct connection between signifier and signified. He suggests that the so-called presence of a signifier is an illusion created by the structure of language itself, which is inherently unstable and always deferred.\n\nWhen Derrida speaks of the "formal essence of the signifier" as "presence," he is highlighting the paradoxical nature of language and meaning. The formal essence of a signifier refers to its structure and the way it functions within a system of signification. Presence, in this context, does not refer to a material or concrete presence but rather to the appearance of direct connection and immediacy between the signifier and the signified.\n\nDerrida\'s critique of presence challenges the idea that meaning can be fixed and stable. Instead, he argues that meaning is always subject to interpretation and reinterpretation, based on the context in which it is used. By calling attention to the arbitrariness and contingency of language, Derrida aims to deconstruct traditional notions of certainty and stability in language and philosophy.\n\nIn summary, Derrida\'s discussion of presence in "Of Grammatology" is a complex critique of traditional metaphysical assumptions about language and meaning. It challenges the idea that the essence of a signifier is its transparent and immediate connection to a concept, and instead emphasizes the inherently unstable and deferred nature of meaning in language.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730217162, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANioMMYSmjoPr1upbxYNebM5WvE5F', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 416, 'prompt_tokens': 107, 'total_tokens': 523}}	961274.0	48153.0	933.0	registered	https://i.sstatic.net/sw7YK.jpg?s=256	Mozibur Ullah	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/933/mozibur-ullah	True	265	1	2	1456290655	1456262068	NaN	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32358/why-is-the-formal-essence-of-the-signifier-presence	Why is the formal essence of the signifier presence?	<p>Why does Derrida say in his <em>Grammatology</em>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The formal essence of the signifier, is presence; and the privilege of its proximity to the logos as phone is the privilege of presence</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>How does a formal essence have presence - should it not be, perhaps material essence? Or does this simply mean that the essence of a signifier, is purely formal; finally, what does Derrida mean by presence here?</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	70	uhtm8DPT3A/Mrw	NaN	None	44.0	32368.0	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2539	32366	[<p>Now that you've edited the question, the two are indeed equivalent. Both are equivalent to "¬P or Q". </p>\n\n<p>The issue with understanding "unless" is that often when we hear it in ordinary English we interpret it to mean "unless and only unless", i.e. equivalent to the exclusive or. We often do the same with "if", i.e. we 'perfect' it and understand it to mean "if and only if". For example, if I say, "if you wash my car I'll give you ten dollars", the obvious assumption is that if you don't then I won't. I haven't said I won't, and maybe I'll give you the ten dollars anyway, but the implicature is that I won't. Similarly with "unless": if I say, "unless you leave now I'll call the police", I may just call them anyway, I didn't say I wouldn't, but the implicature is that I won't if you leave. </p>\n\n<p>So, in your example, "Q unless ¬P" is still true when P is false and Q is true. In classical propositional logic, "unless" is equivalent to the inclusive "or". </p>\n, <p>Usually, "<strong>P</strong> unless <strong>Q</strong>" is "symbolized as <strong>P ∨ Q</strong>. See :</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Stephen Cole Kleene, <a href="https://books.google.it/books?id=q-YEuuZ_j8EC&pg=PA64" rel="nofollow">Mathematical logic</a> (1967 - Dover ed 2002), page 64.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>According to the truth-functional definition of <em>conncetives</em> (see truth tables), we hvae that:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>P ∨ Q</strong> is equivalento to <strong>¬P → Q</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Thus, the answer to your question is: NO, for <strong>P → Q</strong> we get: "<strong>¬P</strong> unless <strong>Q</strong>"</p>\n]	[1456357645, 1456298237]	[False, False]	[1, 2]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'I can help clarify the logical equivalence between "if p, then q" and "q unless ~p" using truth tables.\n\nLet\'s first break down the definitions of the two statements:\n\n1. "If p, then q" is represented by the conditional statement p → q. This statement is true unless p is true and q is false.\n2. "q unless ~p" is represented by the statement ~p ∨ q. This statement is true unless ~p is false and q is false, which is equivalent to p being true and q being false.\n\nNow, let\'s create a truth table to compare the truth values of p → q and ~p ∨ q for all possible combinations of truth values for p and q:\n\n\| p \| q \| ~p \| p → q \| ~p ∨ q \|\n\|---\|---\|----\|-------\|--------\|\n\| T \| T \| F \| T \| T \|\n\| T \| F \| F \| F \| F \|\n\| F \| T \| T \| T \| T \|\n\| F \| F \| T \| T \| T \|\n\nAs you can see from the truth table, for all combinations of truth values of p and q except when both are true ({T, T}), the statements "If p, then q" (p → q) and "q unless ~p" (~p ∨ q) have the same truth values. \n\nIn the case where both p and q are true ({T, T}), "If p, then q" (p → q) is true because the condition is vacuously satisfied (there is no counterexample), while "q unless ~p" (~p ∨ q) is also true since ~p is false and q is true.\n\nTherefore, "If p, then q" and "q unless ~p" are logically equivalent in terms of their truth values, except in the rare case when both p and q are true.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730217348, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANirM5t3iWk6JYHf0cpb1eRX0sUuv', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 406, 'prompt_tokens': 131, 'total_tokens': 537}}	6298128.0	1.0	19254.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/7774e0ebaea8ccba5377deaed47b0d60?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	Kalernor	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19254/kalernor	True	1595	2	0	1456357645	1456279095	1.456307e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32366/if-p-then-q-q-unless-p	"If p, then q" = "q unless ~p"?	<p>Can anybody please explain to me how "if p, then q" is logically equivalent to "q unless ~p" ? \nMy problem is with all truth possibilities of p and q except for when both are true\nIt seems in those situations they would not have the same logical meaning\nFor e.g: "if p, then q" is true if p is false and q is true. However, shouldn't this possible combination render "q unless ~p" false?\nFeel free to use truth tables or whatever method that would help in explanation.</p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	67	ifkmuu+axp/WqA	NaN	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN
2540	32426	[<p>A more common (but still debatable claim) is that with Christianity, religion and philosophy fused in a way that had not before in the west (that is, Greek and Roman pagan theology did not dialog with philosophy in the way that, eg Augustine or Aquinas seemed to work in the overlap between the two).</p>\n\n<p>To answer your question, consider these three examples:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#ThoAri" rel="nofollow">Aquinas's work in general was greatly influenced by Aristotle</a>, as well as his <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/" rel="nofollow">moral philosophy</a>. Obviously, being Christian, he would say something like Aristotle lacked the full knowledge of morality, but his work certainly indicates Aquinas's approval of large parts of Aristotle's morality and ethics.</p></li>\n<li><p>Augustine discusses the influence of Pagan philosophy on his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(Augustine)" rel="nofollow">conversion to Christianity</a>, but in particular looked to Cicero as a hero, frequently citing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortensius_(Cicero)" rel="nofollow">Hortensius</a> (a work that is unfortunately lost).</p></li>\n<li><p>It was a particularly thorny problem in Medieval theology and philosophy what to do about Socrates - he was a pagan, but he was also acknowledged as one of the wisest, and therefore one of the most moral, people in history. <a href="http://historyofphilosophy.net/albert-aquinas-ethics" rel="nofollow">Aquinas and his teacher, Albert, grappled with this issue.</a></p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>So, just based on these three data points, it's safe to say that morality is <em>not</em> a Christian invention, given that three prominent Christian philosophers (Augustine, Albert and Aquinas) think otherwise.</p>\n]	[1456434283]	[False]	[3]	{'choices': [{'content_filter_result': None, 'finish_reason': 'stop', 'index': 0, 'logprobs': None, 'message': {'content': 'The concept of empathy and moral consideration for others is not exclusive to any one religion or time period. While Christianity certainly emphasizes compassion and treating others with kindness and empathy, similar ideas can be found in other belief systems and philosophies predating Christianity.\n\nIn fact, the importance of empathy and moral consideration for others can be found in ancient texts and teachings from various cultures around the world. For example, in ancient Greek philosophy, thinkers such as Aristotle and Confucius in Chinese philosophy emphasized the importance of virtues like compassion, kindness, and respect for others.\n\nIt is challenging to pinpoint a specific moment in history or literature when empathetic morals were first discussed, as these ideas have likely been present in human society for a long time. The development of moral concepts is a complex and ongoing process influenced by various cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions.', 'function_call': None, 'refusal': None, 'role': 'assistant', 'tool_calls': None}}], 'created': 1730217571, 'id': 'chatcmpl-ANiuxtrTTv51ZuVgdvtXCRO5IRpvU', 'model': 'gpt-35-turbo', 'object': 'chat.completion', 'service_tier': None, 'system_fingerprint': 'fp_808245b034', 'usage': {'completion_tokens': 167, 'prompt_tokens': 152, 'total_tokens': 319}}	7645835.0	1019.0	19432.0	registered	https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a7406333f1543ae134008d738c53066f?s=256&d=identicon&r=PG&f=y&so-version=2	Marijn	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/19432/marijn	True	43	1	1	1456434318	1456428976	1.456434e+09	CC BY-SA 3.0	https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32426/when-in-the-history-and-literature-is-for-the-first-time-spoken-about-a-more-emp	When in the history and literature is for the first time spoken about a more empathetically moral?	<p>Some people say that the moral based from the point of view of another person started with Christianity.</p>\n\n<p>The Anglo in the past history would say that it is not good to rob a bag of an old lady because if you pich from the weak you will despite yourself. But after and due to Christianity the emphasize was more on the fact that the robbery would cause harm and turmoil to the lady. </p>\n\n<p>So there was a change from the perspective of what moral is. But when in history and literature is for the first time spoken about a more empathetically moral. Is that really after Jesus had spoken or also before Jesus?</p>\n\n<p>See min 3:44</p>\n\n<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgESPmh-TxY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgESPmh-TxY</a></p>\n	/XrorrIhV6VhWA	62	WmtYuX1HmsWlew	NaN	None	0.0	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	None	NaN	NaN	NaN

Overview

Variables

Common Values

Length

Common Values (Plot)

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Common Values

Length

Common Values (Plot)

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Common Values

Length

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)

Most occurring characters

Most occurring categories

Most frequent character per category

(unknown)

Most occurring scripts

Most frequent character per script

(unknown)

Most occurring blocks

Most frequent character per block

(unknown)